Mr Speaker: Order. I have to inform hon Members that I have on 29 September this year communicated to the President the Address of Thanks agreed to by resolution of this Parliament on 26 September 2025.
Order. Questions for Oral Answer.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"100% Tariff on Pharmaceutical Imports to the US and its Impact on Singapore Economy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"1 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry what is the expected impact of the new tariffs imposed by the United States particularly for (i) Singapore’s pharmaceutical sector and (ii) future investments in Singapore.
2 Mr Lee Hong Chuang asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry in view of the US decision to impose 100% tariffs on pharmaceutical products, (a) what is the impact on Singapore’s pharmaceutical exports; (b) whether any Singapore-based pharmaceutical companies are eligible for exemptions and what are the criteria involved; and (c) what are the initiatives to support Singapore’s pharmaceutical sector in maintaining access to US market.
3 Ms Poh Li San asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry how will the new pharmaceutical tariffs imposed on branded or patented drugs imported into the United States affect Singapore Government’s long term development plans and jobs for Singaporeans in the biotechnology industry.
4 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry given the new US tariffs especially the 100% tariff on pharmaceuticals products (a) what is the assessed short and long-term impact on Singapore's economy and key export sectors; and (b) what specific measures are being developed to help Singapore businesses cope with the immediate costs and navigate long-term uncertainty created by these policies.
5 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) in each year over the last three years, what is the value of Singapore's pharmaceutical exports to the US with a breakdown by branded and non-branded pharmaceutical products; (b) what is the estimated impact of the latest US pharmaceutical tariffs on Singapore; and (c) whether negotiations are still underway on tariff concessions for Singapore’s pharmaceutical exports.
6 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the impact of the 100% tariff imposed by the US government on pharmaceutical products on Singapore's pharmaceutical sector and to the economy; and (b) what supporting initiatives are available to help pharmaceutical companies in Singapore manage the impact.
7 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the impact on the Singapore economy arising from the 100% tariff on pharmaceutical imports to the United States; (b) whether EDB will consider implementing additional measures in order to attract global pharmaceutical companies to continue investing in Singapore; and (c) if so, what are these measures.
\tThe Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer oral Question Nos 1 to 7 in today’s Order Paper together, as they are on the United States (US) pharmaceutical tariffs?
\tMr Speaker: Please go ahead.
Ms Gan Siow Huang: Mr Speaker, on 25 September 2025, the US announced a 100% tariff on any branded or patented pharmaceutical product with effect from 1 October 2025, unless companies are building manufacturing plants in the US. It is unclear whether they will be subject to the tariff, once their building works are completed. The implementation of this tariff has since been delayed to allow time for pharmaceutical companies to negotiate exemptions with the US administration.
The pharmaceutical industry is a key contributor to Singapore’s economy, with eight of the top 10 global pharmaceutical companies having manufacturing, and research and development (R&D) activities here. Between 2022 and 2024, Singapore’s pharmaceutical exports to the US averaged S$3.7 billion per year. These are primarily active pharmaceutical ingredients instead of finished products like tablets and capsules. We do not have a breakdown by branded and non-branded pharmaceutical products.
We have been engaging Singapore-based pharmaceutical companies on the impact of the US tariffs. Many already have plans to build new capacity or expand their existing facilities in the US and are awaiting further details from the US administration to confirm that their plans would qualify for the tariff exemption. We are also in discussion with the US administration on a preferential tariff arrangement for Singapore’s pharmaceutical exports to the US and will provide an update when ready.
On the immediate support measures for Singapore businesses, including pharmaceutical companies, a written reply had been provided to a similar question raised by Mr Saktiandi Supaat at the Sitting on 22 September 2025. [Please refer to \"Impact of US Tariffs on Singapore Companies and Economy, Update on Negotiations and Support for Key Sectors\", Official Report, 22 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 2, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
We are closely monitoring the situation and stand ready to provide further support as needed.
Our economic agencies continue to attract new manufacturing and R&D investments from global companies, provide support to our local enterprises and create good jobs for Singaporeans. However, the US tariffs and related global developments do point towards a changed world with greater uncertainty. The five committees undertaking the Economic Strategy Review (ESR) are developing recommendations on the strategy to grow our economy for the longer term and will provide an update in due course.
Mr Speaker: Dr Choo.
\tDr Choo Pei Ling (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir. I thank the Minister of State for her response. I have two supplementary questions. One, what proportion of Singapore's pharmaceutical exports to the US comprises active pharmaceutical ingredients or intermediates? And two, are these categories subject to the same 100% tariffs or eligible for any exemptions?
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. As of 2024, 13% of our domestic exports to the US were pharmaceutical products. And this makes up 19% of our pharmaceutical exports to the US. It is unclear at this point on the details of the tariffs, differentiating between the patented and the non-patented products.
Mr Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.
\tMs Poh Li San (Sembawang West): Thank you, Speaker. Thank you, Minister of State. I would like to ask, what the long-term knock-on effects are on the pharmaceutical industry, given that the Government has invested quite a lot of money in this area. Would there be any strategies to diversify our investments?
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: It is actually really too early to tell if there would be a change in the manufacturing and R&D investments in Singapore arising from this set of new tariffs on the pharmaceutical products. But also, I think we have to understand that beyond tariffs, companies will consider a range of other factors in making their investment decisions in Singapore, including our political stability, rule of law and the pro-business environment that we have here, global and regional connectivity that we will continue to enhance, and best-in-class infrastructure and access to skilled workforce.
We will continue to look at how we can diversify our sectors in our economy. As I said earlier on, the ESR is looking into this and will be providing an update on the strategy going forward.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her answer. How would the new US pharmaceutical tariffs affect our healthcare system, particularly medicine availability and drug pricing? Are Singaporeans seeking care likely to face higher costs and will the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI), together with the Ministry of Health and Health Sciences Authority, conduct a formal assessment of near-term risks to common medicines and how tariff costs may pass through to consumers?
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: The Singapore Government is still currently in discussion with the US on preferential tariffs arrangement for our pharmaceutical exports to the US. I think it is really too early for us to tell whether the prices of pharmaceutical products in Singapore will be affected. But we will certainly make sure that healthcare will continue to be accessible and affordable for Singaporeans.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
\tMr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker. Just two supplementary questions for the Minister of State. First, I think, as early as in May, the Deputy Prime Minister has mentioned that Singapore is pursuing preferential tariffs to the extent of even zero tariffs on pharmaceutical exports. And so, from that perspective, now that we are already in October, is the idea of having zero tariffs still a possibility, given the current environment? And secondly, more from a longer-term perspective, while companies like AstraZeneca, Pfizer and some of these big pharmaceutical companies are able to negotiate their own deals with the US, but more broadly for Singapore as a whole, and given that the European Union (EU) and Japan do already have their own tariff deals with the US, from Singapore's perspective, if the Minister of State can share the latest updates and what are some of the impediments to a deal with the US administration?
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: We are still having negotiations with the US administration. In particular, Deputy Prime Minister Gan just had a virtual meeting with US Secretary Lutnick last week on a broad framework and the details are being followed up. The negotiation details are confidential. I am sure Speaker and Members in this House will clearly understand this point.
I think we also have to take note that the preferential tariff rates secured by countries like Japan and Korea for their pharmaceutical exports were part of broader negotiations with the US on reciprocal tariffs. We have to be realistic at this point, but at the same time, we are working our best to negotiate for the good of our Singapore economy and the companies here.
Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Thank you, Sir. My concern is more about how we can continue to attract investments, especially pharmaceutical investments into Singapore with this announcement. So, can I ask the Minister of State whether MTI or the Economic Development Board (EDB) see that to have an impact on how we attract new investments, whether it is from existing companies or from new companies?
And secondly, how would that also impact our aspiration to be the R&D centre for drugs and vaccines discovery, whether that that will impact that aspiration as well.
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: I will answer both questions together. Indeed, it is in our interest to try to continue to be an attractive place for investments and R&D in the pharmaceutical sector under the Research, Innovation and Enterprise 2025 Plan.
We have committed $28 billion for research and innovation with the intent to accelerate human health and potential as one of the key focus areas. This includes funding to drive research and translational efforts in the biotech and life science sectors. We will be announcing the research funding under RIE 2030 later this year. At the same time, we will continue to invest in talent development, both our local as well as drawing foreign talent, so that we can have a competitive sector to attract businesses and R&D to Singapore.
Mr Speaker: Mr Lee Hong Chuang.
\tMr Lee Hong Chuang (Jurong East-Bukit Batok): I thank the Minister of State for the statement. I just want to clarify that if there are any companies right now that are looking to coming to Singapore, but because of these tariffs, they are deterred or still just considering?
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: I seek Speaker and also Members' understanding that the negotiations are still ongoing. And I think it is sensitive for us to disclose information about companies that are considering coming to Singapore at this point.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker. Presumably, MTI has a plan for what it will do should negotiations end up being somewhat less fruitful than we will all hope. Would the Minister of State be willing to share if their plans expand to third markets that they hope to target with our pharmaceutical exports? And if that was the case, whether she would be willing to share more details about which ones these may be?
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: Regardless of the outcome of the tariffs negotiation, I think Singapore will continue to look at how we can go to more markets where we think it makes business sense for our pharmaceutical exports.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data for Cases Directed to Community Mediation Centre and Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for Law (a) for each of the last three years, how many compulsory Community Mediation Centre attendances are directed through (i) authorised officer mediation direction; (ii) Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal order; (iii) Magistrate's Complaint; (iv) police referral; (v) Community Relations Unit mediation direction; (b) whether residents may appeal to the Ministry to compel mediation; and (c) if so, the number of such appeals and successful outcomes.
9 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Minister for Law (a) in each of the past two years and nine months, how many cases of disputes between neighbours had escalated to violence resulting in (i) injuries and (ii) fatalities; and (b) how many of these disputes were due to be or were being processed by the (i) Community Mediation Centre and (ii) Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals; and (c) what preventive measures are being studied and considered.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Murali Pillai) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 8 and 9 in today's Order Paper together?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please proceed.
Mr Murali Pillai: Thank you, Sir. Sir, my response will also address related questions by hon Members Mr Gabriel Lam1, Mr Yip Hon Weng2, Mr Xie Yao Quan3, 4, Mr Ng Chee Meng5, Ms Valerie Lee6, Ms Elysa Chen7, 8 and Ms Gho Sze Kee9, which are scheduled for subsequent Sittings. Thereafter, Minister of State Alvin Tan will, with your permission, Sir, address Question Nos 10 and 11 in today's Order Paper.
Mr Speaker, may I request that we deliver our replies, which pertain to neighbours' disputes, and then, for us to take supplementary questions together thereafter, please,
Mr Speaker: Alright. So, we will take any supplementary questions after we have addressed Question No 11.
Mr Murali Pillai: Obliged, Sir. First, I will briefly recap the Government’s overall approach for managing community disputes, before addressing Members’ questions on difficult neighbour disputes and how we intend to address these more effectively. My colleague, Minister of State Alvin Tan, will respond to questions on the Community Relations Unit (CRU).
Last year, we enhanced our Community Disputes Management Framework (CDMF) when this House passed the Community Disputes Resolution (Amendment) Act 2024. As Minister Edwin Tong explained during the Second Reading of the Act, our aim is to strengthen our community so that neighbours can constructively engage with one another, even when disagreements arise. This starts by fostering positive neighbourly relations.
Now and then, disputes between some neighbours do arise. It is best for these to be settled amicably. So, whenever community leaders or Housing and Development Board (HDB) officers become aware of a dispute, they attempt to mediate informally, particularly at an early stage, before relationships break down. They will also encourage residents to attempt formal mediation at the Community Mediation Centre (CMC). When both neighbours participate, mediation has proven effective in resolving community disputes. It is free and it preserves neighbourly relations in the longer term.
\tOur experience shows that neighbour disputes become harder to resolve when they become personal, emotionally charged or if they are prolonged. For these cases, where suitable, the recent CDMF enhancements will empower public officers, such as HDB officers, to issue a Mediation Direction (MD). MDs are legally backed orders that require recipients to attend mediation at the CMC. Non-compliance without reasonable excuse, is an offence. This allows us to require disputing neighbours to attend a mandatory mediation, which Members have asked about.
Next, we have established the CRU and empowered its officers to take decisive action in a neighbour dispute. CRU officers are empowered to investigate, collect evidence and if need be, intervene quickly through levers like advisories, warnings and abatement orders.
Since 7 April 2025, the CRU and the MD framework have been piloted in the HDB estates of Tampines town. We have previously explained why we have chosen to start with a pilot.
Generally, most cases should be addressed through mediation or by the CRU. For the remaining intransigent cases, affected residents can consider the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT) as a last resort. We have enhanced the CDRT’s processes under the amendments last year and are working to operationalise them as soon as practicable.
Having set the context, let me now address the questions that hon Members have filed in relation to our community mediation framework and the CDRT.
Hon Member Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the number of neighbour disputes where parties refused mediation. As I mentioned earlier, it is best for neighbour disputes to be settled amicably between neighbours or via informal mediation by community leaders or HDB officers. And many are indeed resolved in this way. For disputes that proceed to formal mediation, from November 2024 to August 2025, about 1,300 neighbour disputes were registered with the CMC for voluntary mediation. In about 50% of these cases, one party did not respond. In another 20%, at least one party declined outright.
Hon Members Mr Ng Chee Meng and Mr Gabriel Lam asked how we can refer more disputes to mediation. As mentioned, directed mediation is now being piloted in Tampines. In suitable cases, authorised officers, such as HDB or CRU officers, can issue an MD to direct disputing parties to attend mediation at the CMC. The Ministry of Law (MinLaw) will continue to work with the Ministry of National Development (MND) and HDB to ensure that more suitable disputes are directed to the CMC for mandatory mediation. An early intervention with mediation will give parties a better opportunity to resolve their disputes before it becomes entrenched.
Ms Gho Sze Kee asked whether we will consider empowering the CMC to issue MDs. This is already the case for what we call “re-mediation cases”. These are cases where residents previously attempted voluntary mediation and arrived at a settlement, but the same disputes resurfaced subsequently. So, there is value in directing re-mediation in such cases since both parties were willing to attempt voluntary mediation at the first instance.
In a similar vein, hon Member Mr Kenneth Tiong asked whether residents may appeal to the Ministry to compel mediation. Beyond re-mediation cases, it will not be appropriate for the CMC to issue MDs to parties directly. The CMC cannot be seen as taking sides and compelling mediation because of an appeal by one party. The CMC cannot rely on the representation of one party to enforce mandatory mediation on the other. A proper assessment of the circumstances must be made. In this regard, the CMC has to rely on triage by ground agencies, such as HDB and CRU, to determine the situation on the ground. For example, cases involving physical threats will not be suitable for mediation. Residents who are unable to obtain their neighbour’s agreement to attend mediation, can approach the HDB or CRU for assistance. Also, if a CDRT claim is subsequently filed, it is possible for the judge to direct parties to attend mediation.
Hon Member Mr Gabriel Lam asked about the expansion of the MD pilot, which started about six months ago on 7 April 2025. Agencies are actively reviewing the learnings from the pilot and will continually refine operational protocols. I will come back to this again in my concluding remarks.
Minister of State Alvin Tan will also speak more on the CRU framework in his response.
Hon Member Mr Xie Yao Quan asked whether stakeholders, such as grassroots advisers, can be empowered to issue MDs. We have scoped the legislative power to issue an MD to public officers and officers of Statutory Boards. Given the nature of MDs, and that non-compliance can result in a fine of up to $1,500, we have not expanded this power to include non-public officers. We will appoint more public officers as needed.
Mr Kenneth Tiong asked about the number of compulsory mediations for neighbour disputes at the CMC for each of the last five years. [Please refer to clarification under \"Criteria that Qualify for Intervention by Community Relations Unit and Unit's Effectiveness in Addressing Neighbourly Disputes\", Official Report, 14 October 2025, Vol 96, Issue 7, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
For court-mandated mediation, from 2022 to 2024, the CDRT and the Magistrates’ Court referred around 90 and 80 cases to the CMC respectively. Since 7 April 2025, the CRU has issued one MD; HDB has not issued any MDs; and the CMC has not issued any re-mediation directions under the MD framework. The Police do not direct any party to attend mediation.
Next, hon Member Ms Valerie Lee asked about penalties for parties who fail to comply with an MD. First, apart from the fine mentioned earlier, once the CDRT enhancements are fully operationalised, complainants who fail to comply with an MD will not be allowed to file a CDRT claim against their neighbours. Next, where a respondent fails to comply, and a case is subsequently filed with the CDRT, the CDRT may make an adverse costs order against the respondent. This is because the respondent has failed to make reasonable efforts at amicable resolution.
Mr Xie Yao Quan asked about the CMC’s plans to appoint more mediators and extend its services into the community. The CMC has increased accessibility to voluntary mediation by establishing 18 satellite mediation locations at various ServiceSG Centres, Community Clubs and Neighbourhood Police Posts. Where suitable, virtual mediation is also offered. The CMC continues to expand its pool of trained volunteer mediators, which has grown from about 140 at the start of 2022, to around 170 as of October 2025.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the immediate intervention measures when parties show aggression. In a similar vein, Dr Choo Pei Ling asked about preventive measures and statistics on disputes that escalate to aggression. To Dr Choo’s query, we have checked with the relevant agencies. Such statistics are not specifically tracked. Any resident who feels threatened by his neighbour should immediately call the Police. The Police will intervene when there are law and order concerns, taking proportionate action based on threat severity. More broadly, agencies will look at how we can strengthen our enforcement posture, particularly in cases that may involve threats of physical aggression.
Ms Valerie Lee, Mr Gabriel Lam and Ms Gho Sze Kee asked about neighbour disputes where one or more parties may have underlying mental health conditions. The framework remains as Minister Edwin Tong and Senior Minister of State Sim Ann had explained during the Second Reading in November 2024. Our guiding principle is to persuade the resident to voluntarily go for assessment and treatment. Here, the assistance and involvement of the family and caregiver can be crucial. If frontline officers are unable to persuade the individual to seek treatment, then they will consider guiding the case towards a Mandatory Treatment Order, which we expect to operationalise by the end of this year.
For some conditions, treatment may not be possible. In such cases, frontline officers partner with agencies, such as the Agency for Integrated Care, so that professionals can be brought in to assess how best to support the resident and manage the condition.
Ms Elysa Chen asked for data on the CDRT’s caseload. She also asked about support for claimants in preparing evidence for CDRT hearings. The top three CDRT disputes for the last five years are claims for excessive noise, excessive vibration and littering. A party may include multiple types of disputes in a single claim. Between 2020 and 2024, a total of 1,031 CDRT claims were filed. About 65%, or two out of three claims, involved excessive noise. Of these CDRT claims, the CDRT issued 233 CDRT orders and dismissed or struck off 145 cases. Another 651 claims were withdrawn or discontinued.
The CDRT made 26 enforcement orders, comprising 24 Special Directions and two Exclusion Orders.
For cases that involve alleged breaches of CDRT orders to cease smoking, any evidence that points to the fact that the respondent was smoking in breach of the CDRT order, would be relevant. Some examples include letters or contemporaneous messages exchanged between neighbours; and written records with specific timestamps of the acts in question.
Residents who require more information on the CDRT process can refer to the “Guide to Neighbour Dispute Claims”, which is available on the Judiciary’s website. Residents may also seek legal help from Pro Bono SG's Community Law Centres and Community Legal Clinics.
Mr Speaker, Sir, let me say a few words in conclusion.
Some Singaporeans are understandably concerned after the incident in Yishun last month. The Government will continue its existing efforts to strengthen the CDMF. This is a continuous ongoing process. For the more difficult cases, we are now piloting a directed mediation framework and the CRU in Tampines. Agencies are prepared to and will expand the application of the enhanced CDMF as soon as practicable, so that more cases can benefit from mediation and the direct intervention tools of the CRU.
However, no framework will be able to address all manner of neighbour disputes or curb specific individual behaviour, especially violence. No one should resort to violence to deal with a neighbour dispute. That is a personal responsibility.
It is therefore necessary for us all to press ahead with the important work of building up the community’s capacity to practise self-moderation and to engage with one another when disputes arise. It is a multi-pronged approach in building a harmonious community together.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Law (a) how the Government plans to address persistent neighbour noise disputes more effectively given the low uptake of mediation; (b) whether the pilot Mediation Direction framework will be expanded nationwide; and (c) how agencies will better support cases involving vulnerable individuals including those with underlying mental health issues.","2 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Law (a) since the Community Disputes Resolution (Amendment) Bill was passed, how many disputes between neighbours have parties who refused mediation; and (b) when parties show aggression, what immediate intervention measures, beyond the standard framework, are activated to prevent the dispute from escalating further and ensuring the safety of all involved.","3 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Law (a) since the Community Disputes Resolution (Amendment) Bill was passed, how many disputes between neighbours have parties who refused mediation; and (b) when parties show aggression, what immediate intervention measures, beyond the standard framework, are activated to prevent the dispute from escalating further and ensuring the safety of all involved.","4 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Law if the Ministry will consider enhancing the capabilities of Community Mediation Centres (CMCs) by (i) training and appointing more CMC mediators and (ii) extending CMC services beyond the centres and into the community.","5 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Law in light of the recent fatal knife attack incident in Yishun over a neighbourly dispute, what measures will be taken to refer more disputes to the Community Mediation Centre for mediation given that less than a third of mediation applications proceeded to mediation as one of the parties involved does not want to participate.","6 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Law whether there are any updates on (i) the plan for penalties to be imposed on noise-related disputes for parties who opt not to attend community mediation sessions and (ii) the case handling framework for noise-related dispute cases involving underlying mental health conditions.","7 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Law for each year over the last five years, what is the number of applications made to the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals with a breakdown by the (i) cause of action and (ii) respective outcomes for each category.","8 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Law what guidance or support is available to claimants in preparing evidence for Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal hearings, especially in cases involving alleged breaches of orders to cease smoking at home.","9 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Law whether the Ministry will consider revising the Community Disputes Resolution Act 2015 to (i) empower the Community Mediation Centre to issue compulsory mediation orders for neighbour disputes and (ii) direct intervention by agencies such as the Police or Institute of Mental Health when early signs of aggression or mental illness are detected, to prevent escalation and safeguard the community."],"footNoteQuestions":["8","9"],"questionNo":"8-9"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criteria that Qualify for Intervention by Community Relations Unit and Unit's Effectiveness in Addressing Neighbourly Disputes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for National Development (a) what criteria distinguishes a severe noise dispute qualifying for Community Relations Unit intervention; and (b) given that the one-year pilot in Tampines handled only five severe cases while not deploying noise sensors, what is the Ministry’s assessment of (i) the unit’s efficacy and (ii) whether its enforcement powers are operationally useful.
11 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for National Development since the pilot launch of the Community Relations Unit (CRU) in April 2025 (a) how many cases have been resolved or closed by the CRU; and (b) what is the Ministry’s assessment of the effectiveness of the CRU in addressing severe neighbour disputes involving noise and hoarding.
\tThe Minister of State for National Development (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Parliamentary Question Nos 10 and 11 on today’s Order Paper together please?
Mr Speaker: Yes, go ahead.
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, my answer will also address similar questions filed for oral answer by Members Ms Mariam Jaafar, Mr Xie Yao Quan, Mr Foo Cexiang, Dr Charlene Chen1, 2 and Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin scheduled for the Sittings on 15, 16 and 17 October, and the questions filed for written answer by Members of Parliament Mr Gerald Giam, Mr Cai Yinzhou and Dr Charlene Chen3, 4 for the Sittings on 14, 15 and 16 October.
Sir, when neighbours engage in a dispute, our priority is to bring them together to understand each other’s perspectives and needs, and then, also try to find a mutually acceptable solution. It is neither desirable for our community spirit nor sustainable for Government to step in as a first response for all disputes between neighbours.
The Community Relations Unit (CRU) framework strikes a balance between Government stepping in to manage a dispute and leaving enough room for neighbours to settle disputes themselves. It is not a panacea for neighbour disputes and it is not a substitute for a strong foundation of positive community norms, good neighbourly relations and community dispute resolution options.
\tCRU has a range of investigatory and enforcement powers, including the power to install noise sensors. These noise sensors are used as a confirmatory tool, after CRU's initial investigations narrow down from which unit the noise nuisance might be coming from. In the five cases in the pilot town of Tampines that CRU has investigated since April this year, noise sensors were not required because either the noisemakers gave formal statements that confirmed they were the source of noise, or the source of noise was clear and unambiguous.
The CRU framework is a useful step forward but its implementation requires significant amounts of resources. Therefore, it is piloted in one town first, Tampines, focusing on severe neighbour noise and hoarding cases. We are reviewing this pilot carefully, to ensure our systems and processes are effective and we have resourced it correctly and sustainably before we extend the CRU services to other towns.
As Minister Edwin Tong and the Senior Minister of State Sim Ann explained in their Second Reading speeches in November 2024, CRU focuses on severe cases that frontline agencies, like the Housing and Development Board (HDB) and the Police, triage and escalate to it. These cases represent a small proportion of all disputes between neighbours. They can include cases where one neighbour is deliberately making excessive noise at unreasonable hours and/or over prolonged periods to cause suffering to surrounding neighbours and where prior mediation has not been successful.
Severe cases with a mental health nexus are another example. Of the three mental health-related cases CRU is dealing with, it has facilitated inpatient admission and treatment for one, and more consistent follow-up with the community for the other two.
The one case involving deliberate use of noise to disturb neighbours and not related to mental health has abated after joint intervention by CRU, the Police and the Town Council. CRU will continue to take on severe cases in Tampines that frontline agencies escalate to it.
As a deterrent and a last resort after exhausting all levers, CRU may refer the most severe and recalcitrant nuisance-makers to HDB, to consider compulsory acquisition of their flats. We will take this course of action only after due care and careful consideration.
For new Build-To-Order (BTO) developments since February 2023, HDB has increased the thickness of floor slabs to 200 millimetres. This has reduced inter-floor noise transmission by up to five decibels. For existing flats, the scope for major infrastructure changes is limited. Nevertheless, residents can practise simple steps to reduce inter-floor noise. They can for example, place rubber padding or \"chair socks\" on the legs of furniture. HDB will also continue to explore other possible solutions through research and development.
Overall, the average monthly volume of neighbour noise feedback in HDB estates, across Singapore, over the past five years has held steady at about 2,500. HDB does not otherwise track the number of disputes between neighbours in HDB flats, or the number of cases that escalated into physical altercations.
Ultimately, we need strong community bonds and strong community norms, so fewer disputes will arise. And where they do arise, parties involved are more likely to resolve their differences in an amicable and mutually acceptable manner, if these norms and practices are strong. This is an outcome worth working towards as a \"we first\" society.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Kenneth Tiong.
\tMr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): I have three supplementary questions for the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) and two supplementary questions for the Ministry of National Development (MND).
For the MinLaw, I would respectfully disagree with the Ministry's view. Because for most of the residents who have appealed for compulsory mediation, and I have written two letters through the Member of Parliament (MP), generally, would the Senior Minister of State not agree that the MP is a sufficient gatekeeper of these compulsory mediation appeals to the Ministry?
Second, for residents outside of Tampines, how should they currently appeal for compulsory mediation? Should they appeal to HDB to come down to their units to see their circumstances for themselves?
Supplementary question three, there is widespread perception that the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT) are quite toothless because, even if you get an injunction, getting an enforcement order seems to be quite difficult. And I quote a Mothership article of 2024, which reported a Bukit Panjang resident who got a CDRT injunction for their neighbour to stop smoking in June 2023, but found it, subsequently, difficult to get the evidence to get an enforcement order when her neighbour persisted in smoking.
For MND, the first supplementary question, so, the CRU has 15 staff members, has had five severe cases in six months. That means less than one case per month. And yet, there are about 2,500 noise cases per month, so generally, using the Tampines electors as a proxy for the number of cases, there should have been about 150 cases for Tampines. So, less than 1% of them have been deemed severe. My question is, what are the thresholds preventing CRU escalation and will MND publish the criteria so that residents and frontline officers know when a case is deemed severe?
Second supplementary question, if no sensors were deployed, what unique capability did CRU add beyond current procedures by HDB and the Police, which already mediate and investigate?
\t
\t
Mr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker, Sir, before I deal with hon Member Mr Tiong's three supplementary questions. I just want to make a clarification. I mentioned in my speech just now that Mr Tiong asked for the number of compulsory mediations for neighbour disputes at CMC for each of the last five years. Actually, he asked for three years. So, with that clarification, let me now deal with the supplementary questions.
The first point about whether the MP can be the gatekeeper. My response is to point out that as far as the issue of directing compulsory mediation is concerned, that has to be dealt with even-handedly and also, it involves two institutions: one, the judge, which is an independent branch of our Government; and the other one, is in relation to the public officers. So, we sited it with the public officers as far as compulsory mediation is concerned, so that anybody who is aggrieved, he may write or his MP may write to the public body concerned and then, they will look at it and see whether or not there is a need to issue a Mediation Direction (MD). Because when the MPs get information, they only hear one side of the story. It is very difficult to hear both sides of the story. But the public officers are able to do so. At the judiciary level, as I mentioned my speech, the judges have discretion to order mediation as well. So, cumulatively, we are able to deal with this matter, ensuring that mediation is really the main thrust of our approach or strategy to deal with neighbours' disputes.
The hon Member asked about compulsory mediation outside the Tampines project. Sir, this is really something which we are looking at and as was mentioned in the speeches made by myself and the Minister of State Alvin Tan, we are looking to complete the pilot, learn from the issues that have presented themselves and then, we certainly want to extend it to all parts of Singapore. I certainly remember the debate that happened in the last session of Parliament, where almost every Member asked that his constituency be volunteered for the extension after the pilot. So, it is a matter of resources. It will come.
I come to the last supplementary question, which is an assertion that the CDRT is toothless. I am just looking at it from the perspective of the legislative framework. The legislative framework allows for a person who breaches a special direction to be prosecuted and be convicted, and that must mean that there is some tooth to the action. It is really a matter of enforcement. And may I also add that, under the enhanced powers, the CDRT or the HDB has even the powers to evict a person from his house. In fact, there have been instances where respondents have been ordered to leave their homes for a period of 10 days and 14 days. So, these measures are certainly measures with serious outcomes.
\t
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank the Member Kenneth Tiong for his questions. I think there are two parts to it: one is with regard to the efficacy of CRU and the expansion; and the second is whether CRU has special powers.
In this regard, Sir, I would also like to ask the Member if he can 100% guarantee that any of these suite of measures, including the CRU, can de-escalate a neighbour dispute, and then I will respond shortly.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Tiong.
\tMr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: That is a strange question. Clearly, I think we cannot 100% guarantee de-escalation, but it will make sense at the margins.
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, of course, that was a question in which we know the answer. Regardless of whatever we do, there is no 100% guarantee. You apply CDRT, CMC, or even to that regard, CRU, to any of these cases, it can help, it can also hinder, and in certain cases as well, it may even exacerbate the situation. So, there is no special power that CRU has and so, let us exercise reason.
Let us exercise reason to it and recognise that there is no tool that is perfect and recognise that we have a useful suite of tools that are available to us, thanks to the enhanced CDMF. And we are using those tools and we are using novel tools in the Tampines pilot with regard to the CRU as well as the MD, but there is no perfect tool in this regard. And so, there is no special power.
But what CRU does is help to be an intermediary, between voluntary mediation as well as enforcement. And that is what it is purporting to do. In the November 2024 Second Reading, I think, many Members of this House, from across both aisles, have naturally asked for the expansion of CRU beyond the Tampines pilot. I understand that and I am no exception. In fact, I think that was one of the biggest asks across.
Can I ask and can I also request for Members to understand this: that this is a pilot, we have done this for six months in Tampines and it is resource intensive. We are now only six months into this one-year pilot. There are five cases. And we will continue to take on severe cases in Tampines that are being floated to, or raised or triaged by the agencies. But I ask for some patience. We are studying this pilot very carefully, sizing it very carefully and where appropriate, we will expand this pilot.
At this point, I also wanted to remind Members in the Second Reading last year that Ms Sylvia Lim had also asked for the expansion of the CRU pilot, amongst many other Members in this House. But what is also very useful is that Members of this House also acknowledged two things. One, is that this is a multi-year effort by several Ministries and agencies, and I thank Members for duly acknowledging that. But the more important point is that Ms Sylvia Lim, while asking like many Members to expand the CRU pilot, she had also acknowledged the resource-intensive and challenging nature of the work. I quote Ms Lim, she said, \"It is also clear that the enhanced CDMF will be a resource-intensive exercise requiring standby teams after office hours and active management of difficult cases by the new Director-General of Community Relations. The work will not be easy.\"
And I thought this is just useful for us. Give us some time. Let us study the pilot. We are working very hard on learning from the five cases that we have in Tampines. I have given, in my reply, the outcomes of these CRU cases in Tampines. And we are also looking at cases outside of Tampines, that some Members have also floated to us. Taken together, we are able to then look at how best to resource this and then extend it to beyond Tampines, when it is appropriate.
Mr Speaker: Dr Choo Pei Ling.
\tDr Choo Pei Ling (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State and the Minister of State for their responses. I have three supplementary questions. One, as noise disturbances and hoarding in common areas remain among the most frequent neighbour disputes in HDB estates, would the Ministry consider reviewing and strengthening legislation and enforcement, including setting maximum permissible decibel levels or clearer hoarding thresholds, to address these issues more proactively?
Two, has the Ministry explore the use of predictive analytics or risk assessment tools to identify the high-risk neighbour disputes before they escalate?
And three, if so, what safeguards are in place to ensure there is fairness, transparency and privacy?
\tMr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will take the first part of the question posed by the hon Member, Dr Choo. She suggested whether the legislation can be reviewed further, to put specific noise levels. Certainly, that is something that we can consider. I would give her and hon Members an assurance that we are continually looking to see how we can strengthen the system, because we know how important this issue about ensuring neighbourliness and harmony in the community is.
But I think one must agree, the core point is that these issues must be dealt with in the community and the community must exercise self-moderation. That is really the principal point. We should not be directing cases to be dealt with at the CDRT as a first resort.
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, with regard to Dr Choo's questions, I want to say that the severity of noise disturbances can vary, depending on ambient noise levels, and rather than just across the board decibel thresholds, CRU measures noise levels above the ambient.
I also wanted to assure Members and in fact, last year at the Second Reading, Senior Minister of State Sim Ann had also assured Members, that there will be safeguards to protect residents' privacy in the deployment of noise sensors. I refer the Member to that speech.
Mr Speaker: Mr Muhaimin Malik.
\tMr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for MND. Out of the five cases that CRU has taken, how many of those cases are considered resolved and how long did they take? Second question, when can we expect the Ministry to decide if the CRU can be expanded to other towns – will it be after the one-year period pilot?
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank the Member. I had mentioned earlier on, going into the details of the cases, there are five cases, I mentioned that of the three cases that CRU is dealing with is to facilitate inpatient admission and treatment for one, and more consistent follow-up in community for the other two. Senior Minister of State Murali had mentioned that the CRU had issued an MD for one, and then, I also mentioned in my main reply, please refer to that, that the one case involving the deliberate use of noise to disturb neighbours and not related to mental health, has abated after joint intervention by CRU, Police and Town Council.
We are studying these, the way in which the CRU is managing these cases. And we see that there are some encouraging signs, but please just do give us some time to study this in detail – and also, cases outside of the pilot – so that we can better think about resourcing it. I think we discussed this in detail last year and I really ask for Members' patience in this. Work with us, we are serious about this, we are working hard on this and we will take all of the learnings very seriously, and your feedback into account.
Mr Speaker: Ms Elysa Chen.
\tMs Elysa Chen (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you Senior Minister of State Murali also, on the affirmation of the importance of positive neighbourly relations. To improve the process, I wanted to ask whether the Ministry is studying ways to further simplify or digitise the evidence submission process for CDRT hearings, to make it more accessible for laypersons.
\t
\tMr Murali Pillai: Sir, I am obliged to hon Member, Ms Elysa Chen, for her positive remarks. Insofar as the point about assisting applicants in the CDRT process, certainly the Judiciary has leaned forward. As I mentioned in my speech, there is a website which provides very important information on how to collate evidence. And also, I would say the CRU has been formed. The legislative intent is also to assist applicants in certain cases by gathering evidence and that can be presented to the CDRT. Or in a very clear cut case, the CRU itself can issue abatement orders. So, collectively, this will assist the neighbour who is belabouring under some disamenities from his other neighbour.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Ng Chee Meng.
\tMr Ng Chee Meng (Jalan Kayu): Mr Speaker, thank you. I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State and the Minister of State for the clarifications. Mr Speaker, my grassroots leaders are really the true heroes on the ground in mediating neighbourly disputes. According to what I know from The Straits Times, 90% of neighbourly disputes are actually resolved at the grassroots level. They often work late into the night on their own time to preserve the harmony between neighbours and the community.
So, two supplementary questions. How can we enhance the ecosystem of support, including resources, so that our grassroots mediators can do their job and play this vital role, before formal escalation to the suite of measures that had been mentioned? And most importantly, given the anxiety over the murder in Yishun, how can we enhance the safety of our grassroots leaders so that they can do this work with peace of mind as they work deep into the night? Perhaps training for some pick-up of warning signs and maybe techniques to de-escalate more serious scenarios? I would like to hear from the Ministries.
\t
\tMr Murali Pillai: Sir, I am grateful to the hon Mr Ng Chee Meng for acknowledging the heroes on the ground, the grassroots leaders. Indeed, that has also been my experience. They do it on their own time, dealing with disputes involving neighbours. And also, they take their own time to train themselves. They go through mediation courses as well. And as a result of which, a substantial number of neighbour disputes are being solved through them.
I would add, Sir, that, actually, there is also another aspect of what they do, which is really creating the goodwill through community activities, getting the neighbours to meet one another. This is something that we took for granted during the kampung days when our doors were always open. Here, the grassroots leaders come, make sure that neighbours meet one another through, say, block parties and other events for residents. And that is very helpful because with the relationship that is built, the neighbour who is originally thinking of complaining, may say, \"Eh, wait a minute, I know his circumstances, I know his family well, maybe I will live with it\". And that is the live-and-let-live attitude that we want to promote in the community.
As to the supplementary questions on supporting the grassroots leaders. Certainly, we are happy to lean forward to train suitable grassroots leaders for mediation training. Mediation is not an easy area for many of them because they may not be legally trained. So, we are certainly happy to see how we can train more. In fact, at the CMC level, we are also looking out for suitable candidates to increase our core of mediators. I think that that can certainly help. We can certainly continue to share best practices and that is one way to strengthen the competence of our grassroots leaders as mediators.
On the issue of the anxiety following the incident in Yishun, I would say this. If anyone feels threatened, then the first thing to do is to call the Police via 999. There is no doubt about that. Mediation is not suitable when there are signs of violence, threatened or actual. You should break off and then let the Police deal with it and that must be something ingrained in everybody's mind. And of course, sometimes we are dealing with evolving situations and there must be a constant assessment as to whether the line is crossed.
\t
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank Member Ng Chee Meng for highlighting the tireless work of his volunteers. Even last night, I was also dealing with one case and my volunteer stayed late night, and I think many of us can attest to that as well. So, this is a shout out to many of the volunteers who work very hard to mediate and also to build the community bonds that are very important upstream.
If I may also just to suggest that Members, please continue to support the Municipal Services Office's (MSO's) ongoing work in this front. MSO has a Love Our 'Hood Youth Challenge, as well as HDB's Singapore's Friendly Neighbourhood Award. These are just some measures in which we can take all of these upstream. And I just wanted to also reflect that these upstream measures are complemented by what Senior Minister of State Murali and I had outlined today, a comprehensive suite of measures for the enhanced CDMF. They are not panaceas, but taken together, I think we can build that \"we-first\" society that we all aspire to.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim. Although you did not file a Parliamentary Question, since your name was quoted by Minister of State Tan, I will give you the floor.
\tMs Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for the Minister of State of MND. Earlier on, when he said that the CRU officers do not have special powers, I just wanted to understand what he meant by that. Because under the Act as we amended last year, they do have actually special powers, legal powers anyway, under the provisions of the Bill that we passed last year. For example, they can issue orders on the spot and so on, so I wonder whether he could clarify that point, what he meant by CRU officers do not have special powers.
The other question is that he quoted my speech earlier about the fact that, and of course I do recognise that the work is not going to be easy, but I did say, perhaps erroneously last year that the CRU had standby officers after office hours. I believe I was wrong on that point, because it was later clarified that the CRU does not work after office hours, so I would like him to clarify that on that point.
\tMr Alvin Tan: Ms Sylvia Lim is right on that second point, so clarified.
On the first point about super powers. That was not my term. I think it was the Member Kenneth Tiong's term, special powers or super powers. So, the Member is absolutely right, there are a few. And I think in the Second Reading, it had already been mentioned under different sections: in section 13E, under section 13M. These are powers that the CRU have been afforded under the Bill which was passed last year.
So, I just wanted to clarify because I did not say special powers and that is why I wanted to make sure that it is very clear. That is why I asked the Member Kenneth Tiong about what he really meant by special powers. If he meant that it would be a special antidote or panacea to resolving this, then it is not. And I think we have agreed that the CRU would not be able to do that. That any intervention could help, it could also hinder.
So, I think just to clarify that exchange between me and Member Kenneth Tiong, that is what I meant. But Ms Lim is spot on, that there are powers afforded to the CRU as outlined by the Second Reading last year.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Mariam Jaafar.
\t
\t
Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): Thank you for the answers. My question is to MinLaw. I have two supplementary questions related to a particular step, which is the service and enforcement step of the process. You gave a lot of data on the number of cases, the number of resolutions. And I actually wanted to clarify if you had mentioned, maybe I missed it, was there data on the proportion or number of CDRT cases that are actually enforced? So, that is my first supplementary question, and I ask that because I hear from the ground that actually, that percentage can be fairly low.
And my second supplementary question related to that is under the current framework. I understand that the affected neighbour who initiated the CDRT is actually the one that is responsible for service and enforcement of the orders from CDRT and that would involve either going through the process server, or, as you said earlier, to make an application to the court. These, of course, can be quite intimidating to the average resident. So, my question is, will the Government consider shifting the responsibility for service of CDRT orders to a Government agency, and related to that, are CRU orders treated the same way? Do those also have to be served and enforced by the affected neighbours?
Mr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker, Sir, in response to the hon Member, Ms Mariam Jaafar, on the second question first. The issue of service of the CDRT order is really a judicial matter. And I take the hon Member's points and we will convey her feedback to the Judiciary as to the modes of service of CDRT orders that should be available to the successful litigant after the CDRT hearing.
Insofar as CRU orders are concerned, that is dealt with by the unit itself, so, that should not present an issue. And certainly, the framework is really to assist the resident. Because the CRU, through the enhanced legislative framework, is able to make the investigations and in a clear cut case, issue an abatement order. And thereafter, if it is not complied with, then, it can escalate and consider enforcement. As I mentioned just now, in response to the hon Member Mr Kenneth Tiong, there could be eviction orders and pursuant to which the person has to leave his house, or there could also be compulsory acquisition by HDB. So, these are all the measures that are available.
As to the steps to be taken to enforce, or rather the figures for enforcement, my apologies, I do not have the figures off-hand, but if the hon Member would like to file a Parliamentary Question, I can answer that specifically.
\tMr Speaker: Okay, there are still many Members who wish to ask questions, so please keep your supplementary question as short as possible. Mr Vikram Nair.
\tMr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Thank you, Speaker. Picking on some of the points that Senior Minister of State made, I understand that two thirds of the disputes relate to noise related matters and about 50% of people who are asked to go for voluntary mediation, do not do so. Another 20% refused it outright.
Taking these points, I would like to make a suggestion to MND, which I had actually raised in a previous Sitting five years ago, and that is a very simple solution for MND to set threshold levels on noise, educate the public on it and then take enforcement. I would respectfully suggest this solves several issues: it avoids the entire sway, the resources needed to decide each noise case, case-by-case in mediation, and then CDRU and then everywhere else.
Instead, with a clear benchmark and enforcement, the first point of contact for most people is to call the Police. There are guidelines, they can enforce, or a suitable MND officer can enforce. I would be grateful for MND's consideration on this.
\tMr Alvin Tan: I responded to that similar question. And MND will take this into consideration.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, can I just ask the Minister of State, how many neighbour dispute cases have been reported in Tampines HDB Town since April 2025? I asked this in my original Parliamentary Question.
Given that the CRU pilot has taken on only five cases in the six months since it started, is this the rate of referrals that can be expected for a typical HDB town? And if the CRU which has greater expertise in handling neighbour disputes, if it never gets referred cases, how would it be able to achieve any significant success?
And lastly, for the Senior Minister of State for Law, can he confirm that the plans are for grassroots leaders or grassroots advisers to issue mandatory mediation orders? Because if it is grassroots advisers, then I believe all, but 10 of the grassroots advisers in Singapore are also MPs, which will present the same problems as the Senior Minister of State mentioned in his response to Mr Kenneth Tiong.
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, I do not have the numbers for Tampines, but the trend that I mentioned earlier in my reply, about the average monthly volume of neighbour noise feedback in HDB estates, across Singapore, over the past five years, which has held steady at 2,500. The trend is similar in Tampines town. Please let me get back to the Member on those numbers.
The Member mentioned earlier on about whether we could have expanded it and what are the measures that we can take? Correct? Can the Member just repeat his question, please?
\tMr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song: I am referring to the expansion within a town. So, Tampines town had six months to run this pilot, but it is taken on only five cases so far. Is this the rate of referrals that we can expect moving forward, when it is expanded to other towns?
\tMr Alvin Tan: So, I think, it is, I mean, inherent in that question is also a very important question that we want to ask. How many referral cases do we want to have and how many serious cases we want to have? And I think, the Member would agree with me that we would ideally have less cases. Ideally. I mean, you would because at the upstream you would have addressed them – but let me respond to this.
The fact is that we are looking at all of these five cases. We have seen some encouraging signs within all of these different five cases that the CRU has already addressed and we are studying these very carefully for us to see what we can do.
I also want to take this opportunity to say that the CRU officers – I mean earlier on, the Member Kenneth Tiong, also mentioned that you have how many different officers, and then why are there just five cases?
My officers at the CRU have worked very hard on these cases. They have devoted time. And as the Member would appreciate, these are very complicated cases and that is exactly why these are severe cases that have been referred to by HDB and the Police. If they are normal cases that are easily managed in the community or in CMC or other measures, then they would not have been.
So, I wanted to just make the point that ideally, we would address many of these cases upstream, but where there are severe cases downstream, that is where the pilot has shown us some ways to deal with it, in concert with and augmented by, the suite of CDMF measures that are already there.
I really wanted to thank my public officers, because in this regard, they have worked incredibly hard and spent incredible amount of time in the five cases in Tampines. And I have mentioned to them that we are open to taking on even more cases, severe cases, to be precise, that have been escalated to us by Police and HDB.
\tMr Murali Pillai: Sir, in response to the hon Member, Mr Giam's question, I would like to clarify that there are absolutely no plans to vest with grassroots leaders or advisers the power to issue MDs. As I have explained in my speech, these powers are to be vested in public officers.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Valerie Lee.
\tMs Valerie Lee (Pasir Ris-Changi): Thank you, Speaker. One supplementary question for the Minister of State. Understand there are considerations to extend the CRU framework beyond Tampines to other towns, if the pilot is successful. I just want to seek clarification, whether this plan also includes private estates like condominiums and private apartments, because I am not just concerned about my HDB residents, I am also concerned about my private estate residents.
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, I have a majority of private residents in my constituency as well. The pilot is meant to inform. We are focused on Tampines town now as a pilot and after getting all of the feedback and all of the learnings from it, the plan is to extend it to other towns, including where there are private estates.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Cai Yinzhou.
\tMr Cai Yinzhou (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Thank you, Speaker. Thank you to the Minister of State for MND. I understand HDB will consider compulsory acquisition of flats by severe and recalcitrant nuisance makers. The constant distress caused by noise transmission is a root cause of many disputes that escalate, including pickleball. And I am glad to hear that new BTO developments now feature increased floor slab thickness.
To ensure we address the structural root issue, can the Minister of State clarify whether they will commit to immediately implementing a mandatory logging and tracking system, and with which agency, to monitor all dispute cases that are reported to involve threats of physical violence in order to identify and flag these recalcitrant offenders, or even consider providing equipment like industrial grade sound monitoring for rental?
My second question is, given the limited scope for major infrastructure changes in existing flats, will the Ministry consider exploring subsidised soundproofing improvements or technology, as a specific upgrade option under future Home Improvement Programmes for blocks that have high persistent record of noise related disputes?
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank Mr Cai Yinzhou for his questions. For the first one, on the mandatory logging and tracking system, and then the second one on the subsidised soundproofing. These require, again, resources, as well as careful learning. And I think pilots, even beyond Tampines, we will look into these and then, if relevant or appropriate, we will consider them.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My supplementary question is directed to MinLaw and it is about inter-agency coordination. When neighbour disputes turn violent, how do we better capture the warning signs, such as, repeated Police calls, past mediation cases, Town Council's complaints? And can the Ministry work with the Police, HDB, Town Council and MOH, perhaps to set up an early warning system so that when multiple reports come in from various agencies about the same household, agencies can act decisively before tensions boil over? And is the current data sharing between CMC, CDRT, the Singapore Police Force really robust enough to flag dangers early?
\tMr Murali Pillai: Sir, I am indebted to the hon Member Mr Yip for his thoughtful suggestion. Certainly, I am aware that there is a level of cooperation between the agencies. I think he is looking towards a proper framework so that we can better detect cases which may become violent. It is certainly something that we can consider.
Sir, while I am on my feet, may I also state that my colleagues have given me the statistics for the enforcement orders, a question that hon Member Ms Mariam Jaafar asked for. In the past five years, there are 24 Special Directions issued and two Exclusion Orders issued.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Charlene Chen.
\tDr Charlene Chen (Tampines): First of all, I would like to thank the HDB officers for all their help. I think they have been putting in a lot of effort to help resolve some of these dispute cases. And I am very thankful that HDB has also chosen Tampines to pilot the CRU. I just have one question for MND's consideration.
I think a lot of the focus has been on the mental health of the neighbours that have potentially been causing a lot of these nuisances. But I also have cases where the mental health of the neighbours on the receiving end have been very badly affected. And I wonder if this could be a consideration, in terms of the severity criteria for MND to step in and activate CRU.
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank Dr Chen for her supplementary question. I mentioned earlier on some of the criteria that we had and how the CRU takes on some of these cases. I also mentioned earlier on about severe cases with regard to a mental health nexus, as well as prolonged and unreasonable interference. There are also in the Second Reading, some details about what criteria we are looking at. But as I mentioned earlier on, let us look at the cases, let us study the pilot which is, again, only six months old, and then, take in your feedback and apply as appropriate.
I also wanted to get back to Member Gerald Giam on his question about Tampines. Since April 2025, there has been about 160 neighbour noise feedback per month in Tampines.
\t
\t
\tMr Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan, last supplementary question.
\tMr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong Central): Speaker, I just have a question for the Senior Minister of State. I heard in his reply that MinLaw is planning to work with HDB and MND to refer more cases for directed mediation. So, if the Senior Minister of State could share in more concrete detail how the Ministry plans to get more cases referred for directed mediation, because I do agree with the Senior Minister of State that this must be one of the centres of gravity for the CDMF framework going forward.
\t
\tMr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker, Sir, in response to the hon Member Mr Xie, can I say that quite clearly not all cases, as I mentioned in my speech, are cases which should go for formal mediation. The idea, and I would take the opportunity to reiterate our framework, is to settle the bulk of disputes in the community itself. That is really using the resources that the hon Member Mr Ng Chee Meng said – our grassroots leaders and community leaders. So, that is the bulwark of the cases that we would have to deal with.
Beyond that, there needs to be an assessment made by the public officers, HDB and CRU, to see whether or not these are the cases where it may make sense for the issuance of the formal MD. So, again, one has to look at the context. In a situation where the CRU is of the view that the case is made out straightaway, it is a straightforward case made out, it may not even bother the residents to go for mediation. They can issue an abatement order. So, that is not necessary for them to go through the entire process.
And in situations where they feel that there are no troublesome signs like threats of violence and all that, that is the situation where the legislative policy contemplates the issuance of the MD. And I guess as we gather more experience from the pilot, we will finetune the protocols and make sure that the aim behind this CDMF, which is really to ensure that our community self-moderates when it comes to the dealing of disputes, ensures that as far as possible, we do not invoke the formal processes, which also includes MD, so that neighbours not only can live and let live, but also continue on in the spirit that we would want to see.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for National Development in respect of chronic and egregious neighbour disputes that cause distress and may not be resolved through mediation (a) what proportion of cases are successfully resolved through the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT); and (b) whether stronger measures, including penalties or compulsory acquisition in cases of persistent safety breaches, will be considered.","2 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for National Development (a) whether neighbour dispute cases in HDB estates have increased over the last five years; (b) how many cases have escalated into physical altercations during this period; and (c) whether there are plans to step up education and outreach on neighbourliness and conflict prevention.","3 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for National Development in respect of the Community Relations Unit (CRU) pilot in Tampines (a) what severity and characteristics of neighbour disputes warrant CRU activation; (b) how many cases have been handled to date and their outcomes; and (c) what benchmarks are used to assess the pilot’s effectiveness.","4 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for National Development in respect of chronic noise nuisances in HDB estates (a) whether residents who struggle to collect noise evidence can access more support or equipment from the Ministry; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider installing noise-reduction materials or features in new flats and in blocks undergoing upgrading programmes."],"footNoteQuestions":["10","11"],"questionNo":"10-11"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Helping Youths Overcome Social Media and Gaming Addictions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry tracks social media and gaming addictions amongst youths; and (b) whether the Ministry is considering any measures to help youth overcome such addiction.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health): Sir, the Ministry of Health (MOH) does not currently track social media and gaming addictions among youths. There are youth counselling and intervention programmes available for those seeking help, such as TOUCH Community Services and WE CARE Community Services.
MOH is working with experts to review the latest medical evidence for social media and gaming addictions amongst youths and working with the National Council of Social Service to review access to addiction support services in the community.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.
\tMr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Thank you to Senior Minister of State. One clarification. If parents were to identify youths with such addictions and flag it, who would be the best authorities to flag it to and what interventions would be available, assuming the child or youth was unwilling to be treated?
\t
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, in any form of intervention and treatment, the client or patient in this case who needs help has to be cooperative. Otherwise, it will be very difficult to actually force someone to receive any form of intervention or care.
But if parents are struggling with where to start to begin the journey of helping their child, they could go to our Mindline.sg website and take a look at some of the resources that are available there. Or for those who need someone to talk to, to get a sense of how to begin that care journey for their children, then to call the national mindline 1771 and speak to one of the counsellors on the phone, or use the text messaging function to contact one of the counsellors who can then guide them on the appropriate resources in the community to begin some of these interactions with the child. Sometimes, it may have to begin with some befriending, so that the child or the adolescent gets comfortable with someone they feel they can open up to and trust, and then gradually bring them on board to receive treatment. So, it is not a straightforward process of dispensing advice or prescribing medication. It may require some degree of interaction to get a sense of what is the best way to approach or to deliver help to the person in need.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Analysing Mental Health Issues Faced by Students","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Minister for Education (a) whether any studies have been conducted to analyse the mental health issues faced by students; and (b) whether more measures are needed to deal with these mental health issues, in light of reports that suicide remains the leading cause of death amongst youths.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi) (for the Minister for Education): Sir, the Ministry of Education (MOE) closely monitors the state of mental health of our students using internal data and through research studies. Two of the latest research studies are the 2020 Youth Epidemiology and Resilience Study with the National University of Singapore and the 2024 National Youth Mental Health Study by the Institute of Mental Health.
These research insights and data are used to improve the full suite of measures on student mental health. For example, we regularly refresh the Mental Health Education lessons within the Character and Citizenship Education Curriculum to address emerging issues. MOE also provides parents with up-to-date information packages to enable them to better support their child's mental well-being.
MOE also collaborates with other Government agencies, such as the Ministry of Health (MOH) as well as the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), to implement the National Mental Health and Well-being Strategy. This includes the Tiered Care Model for youths to promote help-seeking and improve their access to services. The Parenting for Wellness initiative was also launched to equip parents with practical skills in strengthening parent-child relationships and their children's resilience.
Mr Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.
\tMr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the response. One of the concerns underlying this question was the article that said that suicide was the leading cause of death amongst youths. Has the MOE done any studies into these suicide cases to see if there any lessons to be learnt and how best early intervention might have helped in each of these cases so that we can prevent or reduce the number of future cases?
\t
\tDr Syed Harun Alhabsyi: I thank the Member for the supplementary question. Specific to the question on national suicide rates with regards to the youth population between 10 and 29 years old, I do not have the data specific to this particular question. Again, this particular research rests with the national agencies looking at the numbers of suicides as well as death globally and that is something that we can come to if the Member has a specific question in relation to that particular trend.
That, notwithstanding, if I may add, in the context of MOE, we do look at the different tiers in terms of intervention. So, from the level of the students, as we have mentioned earlier, with regards to any opportunity, with regards to mental health education, that is something that we address. We also equip our teachers with skills and basic counselling skills to be able to identify any early signs of distress among our students.
At the school level, we have our school counsellors who can do a suicide risk assessment and also work in tandem with our colleagues from MOH as well as healthcare institutions, in terms of the Response, Early intervention and Assessment in Community mental Health (REACH) teams, which also work very closely with our schools, as well as the specialist teams which reside in the hospitals. So, in terms of mental well-being and care for our students, as well as youths in general, it is a whole entire ecosystem of support. I hope this clarifies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clinical Pathways Linking Schools and Primary Care to Emergency Departments for Adolescents at Risk of Self-harm","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what standard clinical pathways link schools and primary care to emergency departments for children and adolescents at imminent risk of self-harm; and (b) whether the Ministry will set coverage targets for gatekeeper training and pilot a 24/7 paediatric crisis line integrated with mobile crisis teams.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, my response will also address written Question No 17 in today's Order Paper and a similar Parliamentary Question filed by Dr Wan Rizal1 for a subsequent Sitting. If the questions have been satisfactorily addressed, it may not be necessary for the Member to proceed with the question for future Sittings.
Sir, suicide is a complex phenomenon. Apart from warning signs, the assessment of suicide risk takes into account individuals' thoughts and behaviours. These are incorporated into the Practice Guide for the Tiered Care Model for Mental Health which guides mental health service providers on how to assess suicide risks and determine the appropriate follow-up actions.
Like other mental health service providers, school counsellors are trained to conduct suicide risk assessments. Students at imminent risk are directed to hospital emergency departments, while those with non-imminent risk are referred to the Response, Early intervention and Assessment in Community mental Health (REACH) teams for further assessment and intervention. The Ministry of Health (MOH) and Ministry of Education (MOE) do not currently track the data from school alert to first clinical contact.
The national mindline 1771 serves individuals of all age groups, including children and youths, by providing brief counselling and referrals to other mental health services where needed, including crisis response teams. Frontline personnel and volunteers in various sectors have access to basic mental health training to help identify individuals in psychological distress and refer them for further support. As of March 2025, about 140,000 frontliners have been trained.
MOH will continue to work with relevant agencies to work on ensuring timely support of individuals with suicide risks.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.
\tDr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for sharing on this issue with regard to suicide and the workflow. To be honest, I want to express my thanks to the counsellors, the school educators and of course, everyone involved in this mental health space because working with youths is really not easy. It is certainly complex and requires some dedication in that regard.
But having said that, I do believe that we need a national crisis pathway and in so, we need a key performance indicator (KPI) that will be distinctive enough for us to ensure that the timely intervention is set. Because right now, we do not have a particular KPI. May I suggest that the Ministry consider this and put this as part of our crisis pathway?
And having said that, will this pathway flowchart be issued and publicised so that it can be used across the different organisations, whether it is in schools, whether it be in the hospitals, whoever is doing the crisis intervention? We need to have the data to be properly accessed when an imminent risk occurs.
\t
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I thank the Member for his concern on youth mental health and indeed, as he said, it is a complex issue and – as in my previous response to Member Vikram Nair as well – it is not something you can force onto the youths. They have to be encouraged to come forward and be open about sharing and discussion.
In terms of KPIs, based on what I have just explained about the complex process, about even getting someone to begin to seek help, it is therefore probably not very practical and it is difficult to set a downstream KPI. Because how soon the person is prepared to step in to receive care, how well they respond to that conversation with their counsellors or their doctors, it is really very much individualised. It will be quite difficult to set a KPI that artificially constrains what the counsellor or the interventionist needs in terms of having time to build a rapport, and build trust and understanding. So, it is a journey that must be taken between the counsellor and the patient or the youth.
What we have done is to make sure that at the very upstream, we want to make sure access to care is readily available and that there is no barrier to entry for any youth who is prepared to come forward and seek help. That is why this is the true value of our first stop for mental health, the national mindline 1771. It is meant to be something that can be anonymous so that it does not add that stigmatisation or the fear of the youths of having to see someone face-to-face which they may not be comfortable with. They can pick up a call, speak to a counsellor in a non-judgemental way and without asking them for their identity, to just seek very simple consultations and get counselled, to help them get through the immediate emotional distress that they may be feeling. And if they feel comfortable with the counsellor talking to them and they are prepared to look for a connection to a physical contact point with social services, this is where the counsellor can then try and link them up with someone that may then take the conversation and the relationship further in the physical space.
So, the whole idea is to create options that the youths can access. Those who may be more comfortable with using, say, text messaging and WhatsApp, can also use the WhatsApp function, the text messaging function on the mindline portal. We are just trying to provide a lot more access and options so that there is absolutely no reason why the youths who are prepared to step forward and seek help, will be deterred from it. That is something that we hold ourselves to, to try and provide and to do more in this area.
In terms of flowchart for assessment and escalation, in the practice guide, we actually graded our interventions into four different tiers, from tier one to tier four, from lower equity, those who are mentally well, that needed some education to tier four, where there is more of a crisis intervention at the acute care setting, for example, in the Institute of Mental Health (IMH). This entire practice guide also includes a flowchart, as the Member has asked for, that helps care providers, counsellors of different grades and across the whole spectrum of mental health interventions, to see at which point they need to escalate to the next level and to guide them on the appropriate pathway to take, including certain eligibility criteria, certain guides that they can follow so that there is some degree of standardisation and that also forms as a basis for communication across different care providers.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Senior Minister of State Sun Xueling, do you have a clarification to make?
[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":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health in respect of the Institute of Mental Health's (IMH) study on increased warning signs in the week before suicides (a) whether these warning signs have been embedded into referral protocols for schools, general practitioner clinics and emergency departments; (b) what is the coverage of gatekeeper training among staff; and (c) whether time-to-first-clinical-contact KPIs will be established for school-initiated referrals."],"footNoteQuestions":["14"],"questionNo":"14"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Senior Minister of State for National Development","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Senior Minister of State for National Development (Ms Sun Xueling): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. During the supplementary questions on Housing and Development Board (HDB) shop rents on 24 September 2025, Mr Ang Wei Neng had sought a clarification on the number of sold shops that HDB had selectively acquired before. I had replied then that I will come back to the Member as to whether or not we have selectively acquired any HDB sold shops before. [Please refer to \"HDB Shop Rental Trends and Efforts to Keep Rents Affordable\", Official Report, 24 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 4, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
I have since checked on the Member's question. I would like to provide a clarification for the record.
To date, HDB has bought seven HDB sold shops located in Yishun, Pasir Ris, Jurong West and Choa Chu Kang. This refers to instances where HDB bought the shops for time-sensitive upgrading and reconfiguration works. Thank you.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Race and Religion","subTitle":"Statement by Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Thank you, Sir. The purpose of this Ministerial Statement is to reiterate the fundamentals of our approach to race, religion and language, and its application in the political context.
I will cover three areas in this Statement. First, the background to our approach to race, language and religion. Second, recent incidents where race and religion were brought into politics. And third, why if we go down this path, it will lead to bad outcomes for Singapore and Singaporeans.
Sir, let me begin by setting out the historical backdrop to our nation-building journey. After the Second World War, many former colonies became independent countries. Many had a dominant ethnic group. In some countries, this group made up an absolute majority. In other countries, the dominant ethnic group was the largest minority. Many of these countries chose the language of the dominant ethnic group to be the official language of their new nations. Sri Lanka and Malaysia are two examples. This is the approach of countries in the West as well, to organise themselves.
In many countries in the West, as well as elsewhere, minorities who do not speak the official language are disadvantaged. Disadvantaged in education, employment and opportunities to progress economically and socially. Many countries also implemented policies which favoured the dominant ethnic group at the expense of and even suppression of the minorities. Sri Lanka is one example of this practice in the past. Many such practices and arguments over race, language and religion were quite common.
Thus, in 1965 when Singapore became independent, whether you looked at Asia, Africa, Americas or Europe, the norm was that the language and culture of the majority would automatically become the language and culture of the state.
Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I ask the Clerks to distribute Annex A, which contains a copy of a quote made by Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Members may also access this material through the Parliamentary app.
Mr Speaker: Please go ahead. [A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 1.]
Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you, Sir. If our founding fathers had followed the prevailing norm, Mandarin would have been our only official language. But we became independent in 1965 precisely because Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his team decided on a very different approach for Singapore. Mr Lee Kuan Yew declared on the day of our Independence: “This is not a Malay nation; this is not a Chinese nation; this is not an Indian nation. Everyone will have his place, equal: language, culture and religion.”
This was not just political rhetoric. Our founding fathers took systematic steps to build a multiracial, multi-religious Singapore. They enshrined the foundational principles: unity in diversity, justice and equality in our National Pledge. All citizens, regardless of race, language, or religion were to have equal status.
Policies were designed to enable each ethnic group to preserve its own cultural heritage. At the same time, our common space would be enlarged to facilitate interaction and understanding between the ethnic groups. English was used as the language of administration and instruction, meaning the language used in schools. At the same time, students studied their mother tongues – Mandarin, Malay, Tamil – as a second language. Selected festivals of the major ethnicities were designated as public holidays. And on the ground in the heartlands, activities were organised for all ethnicities to promote multiracial harmony. Religious freedoms were protected in the Constitution. At the same time, we retained Malay as our national language. This meant that we continued singing our national anthem Majulah Singapura proudly in Malay in schools and at national events.
Members can see how different this approach is compared with the approach taken by most countries. We did not force any ethnic group to assimilate. The majority group accepted that while they were the biggest group, they should nevertheless take extra care and make sure that the minorities were not slighted. It was in this spirit of multicultural integration that we encouraged each ethnic group to preserve its own heritage. And we created space, space to enhance mutual understanding and develop a common identity.
Our founding fathers, however, faced tremendous opposition to this approach. Many Chinese organisations, including some highly influential ones, asked the Government to make Mandarin our national language and the only official language. Questions were asked: why not – since Chinese were 77% of the population? Why should Singapore adopt English, the colonial master's language, as the language of administration and instruction? Why should Malay be the national language? Why should our National Anthem be in Malay?
Barisan Sosialis, the main opposition party then, took an active position on this matter. The communist-inspired left had long relied in Singapore and Malaya on the mobilisation of Chinese-educated students and labour organisations. They did this by emphasising Chinese-language, Chinese-culture and Chinese education. By doing this, they repeatedly stoked tensions within the Chinese community. The politically expedient course for the People's Action Party (PAP) government would have been to agree to these demands and make Mandarin Singapore's only official language. It would have helped to anchor the support of the majority Chinese community.
In the run-up to the 1963 General Election (GE), the PAP government's majority had been steadily whittled down. Their foothold in Parliament had been eroded to just 25 out of 51 seats at the time of the 1963 GE, less than half. The PAP's position did improve after the 1963 GE, but it was still in a fierce contest with the Barisan Sosialis. Yet, it chose to follow the more difficult, more idealistic course, at a time when the PAP government needed the support of the majority Chinese population. Mr Lee and his colleagues chose the path that would in most contexts be seen as politically foolhardy.
I would ask Members to take a moment to reflect, think about this. You will realise how extraordinary their actions were. How this cuts against all political realities and standard norms.
And for 60 years, we have strived to achieve the ideals in our pledge. But achieving the ideals is still work-in-progress. We have not fully achieved them. Minorities in particular will tell you about the lived realities on the ground. That they sometimes face racism at different levels. That they sometimes feel discriminated against.
Beyond what each of us hears, surveys show how minorities feel. Some Chinese will also tell you of their experiences, though the instances are much fewer.
The key point however is: we set out those principles as our ideals and we swam strongly against the tide – the tide of ethnic identity as an organising principle of society. Instead, our foundational principles were a secular state, meritocracy, multiracialism, equal opportunities for all and the rule of law. A secular state, with neutral language, English, as the language of administration and instruction. The language of government, business, education.
Mr Lee explained this in this House in the year 2004: if Chinese had been made the working language in 1965, and I quote, “Singapore would fall apart. Our races would be in conflict.”
And over the last 60 years, we have taken various steps to achieve the ideals in our pledge. In this context, I will mention two key policies. These were put in place to make the ideals our reality. The first policy, it was decided that a strong legal framework was necessary to preserve our communal harmony and minimise racial, religious conflict.
One of the first Constitutional amendments after independence established the Presidential Council for Minority Rights. The Council's function is to assess whether any legislation would create a differentiating measure which would disadvantage any racial or religious group more than others. The Council's report would then be tabled in Parliament.
Laws were also passed to set out what conduct, what speech would not be allowed relating to race, religion. And over time we have been strengthening, modernising these laws. We have for example, the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act, Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. These laws set out the ways in which we can deal with threats to racial and religious harmony. These laws take their inspiration from earlier legislation. They are only two among a whole framework of laws which seek to preserve our racial and religious space, and deal firmly with attacks on race, religion. For example, we disallow hate speech and offensive speech, against races and religions.
Sir, these points have been addressed many times. However, some Members may not be aware of them. So, for their benefit, I have set out a background summary on some of these points. Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I ask the Clerks to distribute Annex B.
Mr Speaker: Go ahead. [A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 2.]
Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, as we did that, set out the laws, we also know that people will have views on sensitive issues and that these views should not be suppressed. So, we provide safe spaces where honest, frank discussions can be held. These include, closed-door dialogues, fireside chats, regular engagements with different groups, including young people, entrepreneurs, religious groups, unions, non-profits and many others. These settings encourage people to be rational, responsible, while pulling no punches on the substance of their views.
This is, in broad terms, the first key policy underpinning our ideals. One, a robust legal framework that protects the rights of all communities and sets out what you cannot do, what you cannot say in public; and two, a reasonable, calibrated approach to discussing such views in public as well.
But whilst laws can deter and penalise actions that seek to divide our society, laws alone cannot make society harmonious. They cannot force people to understand, respect and like each other across races, religions and across divides. That is where the second key policy framework comes in.
This second key policy is that the Government should actively promote actions, platforms to encourage intermixing and understanding between our different communities. These are too numerous for me to cite. I have listed some of the key examples in Annex B. Members will see that there is a fair degree of activist Government policy. In the past, critics have mocked this as “social engineering” and a violation of free choice. But today, many look at our high level of social cohesion, and ask, “What is your secret sauce?”
The Economist has in the past described the Singapore Government's approach as \"Dirigisme\". \"Dirigisme\" refers to a state-led approach to economic development. The word has negative connotations. But we make no apologies for our philosophy. It extends well beyond economic planning. The Government also takes an active stand and approach in managing social issues, housing issues, community issues and more. But for this approach, Singapore would not be where it is today.
We have in Singapore an exceptionally high level of racial and religious harmony. Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I ask the Clerks to distribute Annex C, which contains a fuller list of indicators on this.
Mr Speaker: Yes. [A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 3.]
Mr K Shanmugam: In the 2023 Gallup World Poll, 92% of Singaporeans said that Singapore was a good place for racial and ethnic minorities and we ranked first out of 135 countries. In the 2024 Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) Survey on race, religion and language, 65% of Singaporeans rated racial and religious harmony as high or very high. More than 90% felt that there was sufficient involvement, or that there should be more Government involvement to ensure racial and religious harmony. Over the past five years, there have been 178 Police reports filed relating to race and religion. This works out to only about three cases per 100,000 people per annum.
Sir, I am not suggesting that race and religious harmony is perfect in Singapore. As I said earlier, it is work-in-progress. Members of different communities do experience racism and face other issues. The deep-seated human instinct, the tribal emotions which come from the gut, these cannot be wished away. As the Prime Minister himself has acknowledged, it is more difficult to be a member of a minority community in Singapore than being a member of the majority communities.
But as a system, we have sought to contain and overcome the natural human impulses by overlaying them with a broader sense of national identity. A community of shared values, experiences and vocabulary. And in the words in our pledge, \"regardless of race, language or religion\", our approach towards racial and religious issues is not to forsake our respective races, languages or religions and force a singular identity, but to forge common ground and find strength in diversity. And our people generally accept these principles.
Singapore is in a good position today. Not perfect, but I dare say, better than most other places. Many of these places started out better and stronger than us, but many of them have been going the wrong way.
Sir, this deals with the first part, the background to our approach to race and religion. Let me move on to the second part.
Second point, some recent incidents where race and religion have been brought into politics. The good position we have in Singapore can remain so only if Singaporeans work at keeping it that way. Politicians, in particular, play an important role in setting the right tone for our society. Not deepening divisions, not misleading the different communities, but by encouraging constructive discussions. By finding solutions to problems and issues faced by the different ethnic communities, not by exacerbating them and not by sharpening differences. It is possible for politicians to say that they subscribe to our multiracial and multi-religious values, but still use veiled rhetoric to work up racial and religious sentiment.
Sir, if you look at our short history over 60 years, there have been several attempts to inflame racial and religious sentiments for political gain. Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I ask the Clerks to distribute Annex D, where I have set out some examples of such attempts which happened in previous GEs.
Mr Speaker: Yes. [A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 4.]
Mr K Shanmugam: In these cases, the Government highlighted the dangers of identity politics. But politicising race and religion remains seductive. It is an easy way to sway the emotions of voters for short-term political gain, but once the division has been sown, it is hard to contain and impossible to reverse. When one group asserts its identity aggressively, other groups in society will push back just as aggressively.
If this happens in a small diverse city state like Singapore, we will be irretrievably damaged. You see around the world what happens when such identity politics takes root. Take the United States (US). Culture wars dominate US politics as parties run identity-based campaigns. Liberals accuse the right wing of preserving white political and social dominance by portraying African Americans as sources of crime and unrest. Republicans counter that Democrats have taken exclusionary identity politics too far, undermining traditional and nationalistic values. Every grievance, every disagreement is framed as an ideological battle. It becomes an all-out war with no room to compromise. If you look at the Netherlands, politicians openly frame Islam as incompatible with liberal Dutch values and portray themselves as protectors of Dutch culture. Some, like Geert Wilders, even go so far as to campaign around banning the Quran, closing mosques and sharpening divides for electoral gain.
We can see how societies are getting increasingly divided. The Edelman Trust Barometer conducts a large-scale global survey every year. They found that more than half of the respondents globally say that their countries are more divided today than in the past.
Singapore has come a long way in building harmonious, multiracial and a multi-religious society. We may look stable now, but we are no more stable than other countries, which I have cited, were before their communal relations became worse.
With this background, let me turn to a few troubling incidents during the recent GE. During the last GE, one Noor Deros came to prominence. He is a self-styled preacher based in Malaysia. He has been denied accreditation as an Ustaz here in Singapore, because he refused to comply with the Code of Ethics under Singapore's Asatizah Recognition Scheme. He refused, despite being counselled by the Asatizah Recognition Board.
On 19 April this year, two weeks before the GE, Deros issued a public statement. He said that he would campaign for any political party which could meet his list of demands. These demands included: one, adopting Islamic economics by changing the financial system to a non-interest-based model. Another demand was that policies aimed at preserving existing racial proportions should be ended. Some of his demands were absurd, I would say very damaging. For example, his demand that we change our financial system to be more Islamic. The financial industry contributes to 14% of our gross domestic product (GDP). It employs nearly 200,000 people. It is vital to our economy. This man, who is based in Malaysia, wants to stop all of that. It is madness.
On 23 April, Deros put up two Facebook posts. He said only the Workers' Party (WP) was taking his demands seriously. Deros said that he would invite Muslims in Singapore to vote for WP if they agreed to his demands. He also portrayed WP's Malay/Muslim candidate in Tampines, Mr Faisal Manap, as a more vocal champion of Malay/Muslim issues compared to Minister Masagos. He called on Tampines voters to \"do the right thing\"; meaning, vote for Mr Faisal Manap.
On 24 April, Deros made further public statements. He reiterated his call for Tampines voters to vote for Mr Faisal Manap. He also said that he had spoken to all of WP's Malay candidates. Deros was saying that he would rally votes for any political party that agreed with his demands, demands which were along racial religious lines, and he was comparing two Malay/Muslim candidates and saying, vote for Mr Faisal Manap because he has been a more vocal champion of race and religion for Malay/Muslims.
That was the main troubling issue, not whether some of his demands were absurd or whether one agrees or disagrees with his demands, or whether one agrees or disagrees with his assessment of candidates. Asking Singaporeans to vote for political parties and candidates along racial religious lines is a reckless thing to do. It also sets a dangerous precedent. If we allow this, other racial and religious groups will have similar demands and we have to allow them to make similar calls, too. The natural result in a democracy will be that the largest and the best-organised religions and races will get their way. They will have the strongest lobbying power and the most number of votes, and political parties will have to listen to them.
The other natural result is that the followers of different races and religions will clash. Followers of different faiths can hold beliefs that are essentially incompatible with one another. If different groups press their religious ideals hard, instead of compromising with one another, and if the Government prioritises the views of one faith over another, conflict is inevitable. If we go down this path of canvassing based on identity politics, the result will be that most parties will appeal to the Chinese vote, and the minorities will feel the squeeze and will be marginalised.
When you try and get the Malay/Muslim vote in this way, and if the Malay/Muslim community responds, the other communities, in particular, the Chinese, will quickly notice and very likely start to view the Malay/Muslim community with suspicion, along communal lines. This is what happens in many countries and our sense is that something like that may have started to happen in Tampines. Many Chinese voters in Tampines seem to have observed the communal nature of the appeals to the Malay voters, and they seem to have chosen to take a different direction during this GE. But this sort of racial dynamics in politics is very bad for Singapore. The same can happen with religions – Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism. These will emerge as the dominant religions influencing politics that will cause deep resentment and anxiety among Muslims, Hindus and other groups.
In the US now, there is a blurring of lines between religion and politics. There was an article published by Spiegel International two weeks ago on 2 October 2025. The article reported that prominent US religious leaders are openly pushing political agendas. One even called for the establishment of an “American theocracy” and banning Muslims from holding public office. Instead of rejecting these ideas, some politicians in the US are promoting them in order to get votes. More citizens have also become more accepting of political violence in the name of furthering religious ideals.
Bigger countries may possibly survive with these sorts of divisions. Singapore – we will certainly be divided, damaged and ruined. Just consider one example from our history, which few in this House will remember.
In the 1963 GE, after we became a constituent state in Malaysia, the PAP won all three Malay-majority seats in Singapore at that time – Geylang Serai, Kampong Kembangan and Southern Islands. The PAP's Malay candidates beat Singapore Umno Malay candidates in these constituencies. The Umno leaders in Kuala Lumpur were furious. They were not going to allow a non-communal party, like the PAP, make inroads into what they considered to be their special preserve. So, they launched a vicious anti-PAP and anti-Lee Kuan Yew campaign. Malay Singaporeans who voted for PAP were called traitors. The leading Malay leader in the PAP then, Encik Othman Wok, was called a \"kafir\".
Chinese-Malay relations spiralled down. And within 10 months, we got the riots of July 1964. That is all it took, 10 months, to unravel everything.
Hence, when Deros started making dangerous statements, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong decided to go public. He felt that he must respond robustly to Deros. And he did so. I will come back to this later.
On 25 April, my Ministry, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Elections Department (ELD) released a joint statement highlighting the dangers of mixing religion and politics. This was in the middle of the GE. The statement also urged all political parties and their candidates to do their part to safeguard the harmony in Singapore.
On 26 April, the Prime Minister held a press conference. He called on Singaporeans to reject efforts to bring race and religion into politics. He asked all political parties to take a clear stand on two principles: one, that identity politics has no place in Singapore; and two, that we should never mix religion and politics.
In this GE, the WP released its own statement on 26 April, the day after ELD and MHA had issued their statement. The WP statement stated that no promises, commitments or agreements were made to Deros in exchange for political support. In the circumstances, given the fundamentals of our multiracial, multi-religious approach and the ideals set out in our pledge, more needed to be said by WP and it needed to be said immediately after Deros had made his posts.
First, on the timing of WP's statement. On 23 April, Deros publicised his meeting with WP. That was on Nomination Day. He said that WP were the only ones who took him seriously. He called on all Muslims in Singapore to vote for WP if they agreed to his demands. He also called on Tampines residents to vote for Mr Faisal Manap, specifically over Minister Masagos. The next day, 24 April, Deros continued to speak publicly about his meeting with WP. He said that he had met with all of WP's Malay candidates. He also repeated his call for Tampines voters to vote for Mr Faisal Manap. Only on 26 April did WP issue its statement. That was more than two days after Deros publicised his meeting with WP and after the statement by ELD and MHA. This was during the campaign period, when every day made a huge difference.
This delay, on such an important matter, begs many questions.
It can confuse the ground. For example, sections of voters might be misled into thinking on those two days that WP was possibly considering Deros' demands. Deros was saying all these things and WP was silent. MHA and ELD had to step in and say that this was unacceptable. And after that, the WP issued its statement.
Second, the WP's statement was ambiguous. It said that no commitments, promises had been given and no agreements were reached. And that the WP was committed to the principle that religion and politics should be kept separate. The statement did not categorically reject Deros' call on Muslims in Singapore to vote along racial, religious lines, nor did it reject Deros' support for its anchor in Tampines, Mr Faisal Manap.
If we accept that identity politics has no place in Singapore, then a clearer and more immediate response was called for. For example, something along these lines would have been much clearer: \"that Deros set out various demands, based on his religious beliefs; he said that he would ask Muslims to vote for candidates who accepted his demands; he asks Muslims to vote for the WP candidates if the WP agreed to his demands; he also said that he endorses Mr Faisal Manap in Tampines, because Mr Faisal is a more vocal champion of Malay/Muslim issues. The WP rejects his attempts to influence the Malay/Muslim community, based on religion and race, just as we reject his endorsement of Mr Faisal Manap, based also on religion and race. That is completely unacceptable. We rejected it when he told us and we reject it now.”
This is what is needed to be said. It is one way of putting it. Any other form of words, conveying the same points, could also have been used. But it should have been squarely stated immediately after Deros issued his statement on 23 April, without letting the matter drag.
Mr Pritam Singh did follow up on 26 and 27 April at media interviews to say that Deros' endorsement does not mean WP will carry forward his policies. But we hope that in future, if such incidents occur, there will be a more immediate, forthright and unequivocal response, given by political parties. Establishing this common understanding on how such issues must be dealt with in future is one of the key reasons for this Ministerial Statement.
Let me now turn to the contest in Tampines group representation constituency (GRC) in the last GE.
As I said earlier, WP fielded Mr Faisal Manap in Tampines to contest against the PAP team led by Minister Masagos. That the Malay/Muslim vote, in particular, was being targeted was obvious, not just to Singaporeans, but pertinently, also obvious to Malaysian observers.
Malaysian politicians from the Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS) jumped in. They saw an opening and urged Singaporeans to vote along racial and religious lines. PAS' national treasurer, Iskandar Abdul Samad, expressed support for WP's Mr Faisal Manap. PAS Selangor Youth chief, Mohamed Sukri Omar, reposted a social media post stating that PAP's Malay/Muslim Members of Parliament (MPs) cannot be trusted. More than 60 years ago, Malaysian politicians said the same things about PAP Malay/Muslim leaders then.
PAS is an Islamist party. Its goal is to Islamise society in Malaysia. It has persistently pushed for the adoption of Shariah law and penalties. Does anyone, whether in here or outside, seriously believe that PAS is supporting WP's Malay/Muslim candidates in Singapore because PAS cares for Singaporeans? Does anyone believe that PAS has Singaporeans' best interests at heart? Does anyone believe that PAS subscribes to Singapore's multiracial, multi-religious model?
Statements by PAS leaders have clearly shown otherwise. In 2024, for example, the PAS President said that Mr Lee Kuan Yew's strategy of fielding candidates from diverse ethnic backgrounds had led to Malay political influence diminishing in Singapore. This is why all of this reminded some of us, of the first 10 months when Singapore was part of Malaysia. I mentioned this earlier. In those 10 months, between September 1963 and June 1964, the ultras managed to work up sentiments to such an extent that race riots broke out in Singapore.
In Dr Goh Keng Swee's words following the 1964 riots, he feared that \"Humpty Dumpty had fallen off the wall and could never be put back again.\" Fortunately, it was only our union with Malaysia which could not be put back together, not our multiracial country, Singapore.
But do not forget. It took us decades to repair the damage; decades for the scars to heal. This history is seared into some of us and it is also seared into some Malaysians, but for very different reasons.
So, we knew the Government had to call it out. When the PAS leaders openly supported a political party in Singapore on racial and religious grounds and in the middle of a GE, and when the political party in question had not responded. Thus, the MHA-ELD statement I referred to earlier, was issued. It spoke about foreigners attempting to influence the elections.
Access to the posts by the PAS politicians was disabled.
The Prime Minister also spoke about this, in his press conference on 26 April. Foreigners targeting Singaporeans, asking them to vote on racial and religious lines. That crosses a red line. The Prime Minister called on all political parties to: one, make their stand clear on foreign influence; and two, clearly and categorically reject foreign endorsements of their candidates.
The PAS politicians were championing one set of Malay/Muslim candidates against another set of Malay/Muslim candidates.
Unfortunately, the truth is that such attempts will have some impact. And therefore, it is incumbent on all political parties to decisively reject any attempts by foreigners to influence our election, especially on the grounds of race and religion.
The WP issued a statement on 26 April. I had also referred to this earlier, in the context of Deros. There are two concerns with WP's statement: first, on the timing; and second, on the substance.
On timing, foreign influence is a serious matter. It is even more serious in the middle of a campaign. So, given the gravity of the matter, it would have been better if WP had issued its statement immediately, without waiting until after MHA-ELD had issued their statement.
On the substance, the WP statement did not clearly reject foreign influence, or the foreign endorsement of its candidates. What it said was that the WP had no control over what others said.
After the WP statement was issued, Mr Pritam Singh made further statements on 26 April. At a doorstop interview, he said that he stood behind the message in MHA-ELD's statement. That made WP's position clearer. Then, finally, at a rally speech later that evening, which took place after the Prime Minister's press conference, Mr Singh went further and gave the WP's clearest statement on the matter. He said that he categorically rejected the involvement of any foreign elements whatsoever in Singapore's domestic politics; and two, that WP does not need the support of any foreign element.
It would have been better if WP had said this right from the start, responding directly and promptly to what the PAS leaders had said. WP did so after Prime Minister had called on all parties to make their position on foreign influence clear; and clearly and categorically reject foreign endorsements of their candidates.
We hope that, in future, political parties will immediately reject any such attempt to interfere in our political process. If this is not done immediately, clearly and unequivocally, it will give rise to questions and confusion. We therefore hope that, in future, political parties will immediately reject – and especially, when such interference is made on the basis of race and religion.
I will now move on to another incident during the GE. Mr Damanhuri Abas was a Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) candidate. He had made attempts to get support along racial lines. At an SDP event, Mr Damanhuri accused the PAP Malay MPs of failing to represent the Malay community and ignoring their issues. He claimed that more opposition Malay MPs were needed to raise Malay issues in Parliament. In an interview posted on social media, Mr Damanhuri stated that Malay community issues had not been resolved for 60 years under PAP rule. He called for the Malay voters to vote against the PAP, framing it as an issue of upholding Malay dignity.
Dignity is a euphemism. What Mr Damanhuri means is more Malay \"rights\", more advocating for \"Malay\" issues, more Malay separateness. In a separate podcast, he said meritocracy is selectively applied. He rehashed these arguments again in rally speeches, this time in Malay.
Mr Damanhuri's rhetoric is deceptive. What he is effectively doing is trading off the long-term welfare of the Malay community and our country for his immediate political gain. This is a slippery and dangerous path that will invite a strong reaction from other races in future elections.
So far, the situation has been broadly stable because the Government has anchored our country on our ideal of multiracialism. The governing party itself has eschewed identity politics and fought against attempts to rile up the different ethnic communities. It has set out the fundamental ideals on how our society should be structured. And it has managed to convince most Singaporeans to accept those ideals.
Meanwhile, from time to time, various parties, candidates, have tried to stir up the Chinese and Malay communities. Because of the PAP government's political dominance, these efforts have not been successful. The PAP has been the dominant political force, so, it has been able to bear the political cost of fighting against such sentiments.
Making this Statement here today, it would actually have been easier to leave all of these unsaid. But this Statement has to be made in the country's interests. The situation is a dynamic one. It is not permanent. If future generations of political leaders on all sides see such identity politics gaining traction, then they will be pressured and tempted to themselves engage in it too. You know what will happen then. It is a one-way street to ruin.
So, people like Mr Damanhuri should be more honest with their constituents. Their brand of politics will only work as long as the dominant political force, whether it is the PAP or another party in Singapore, rejects identity politics.
But if people like Mr Damanhuri succeed, then the serious risk is that more and more politicians on all sides will go for identity politics. And then, Singapore will suffer. We will experience the same conflicts and divisions we see unfolding elsewhere in the world.
So, the dangers of politicising race and religion are clear. But that is not to say that race and religion on the one hand and politics on the other hand, are incompatible. All religions provide guidance on important aspects of life. So, inevitably, there will be areas where faith and public issues overlap.
The Government recognises this complexity and how our identity is interwoven out of our faith, our ethnicity, our language and our culture.
In a multicultural society, a pragmatic approach of give-and-take is necessary. People are free to practise their faiths and express views on politics and political issues, influenced by their private religious convictions. But we need to be mindful. This must be done in a manner that is respectful of other religions. The public, political debate must be conducted and decided on a secular basis and there must be give-and-take on all sides. All political parties need to be absolutely clear. Religion must not be misused for political purposes. It must never be brought into election campaigns. Without this shared restraint, destructive competition for power and influence between the different groups can only follow. The same logic applies to race.
Our society is structured such that every community gives up something for the common good and every community has progressed, as the nation has progressed. If any community pushes for its interests without consideration for the other communities, then a pushback can be expected. We need to think of our Singaporean identity as fundamental and we each have to give up something to strengthen the shared Singaporean identity. And so, when there are threats to our social cohesion, or attempts to bring race and religion into partisan and electoral politics, this Government must and will act, consistent with the principles it has upheld over the last 60 years.
Statements like those from Deros and Mr Damanhuri in the last GE cannot go unaddressed. We highlighted and strongly criticised some of these instances of racial and religious politics during the GE. But we decided not to take immediate action against those who were transgressing. But we cannot allow such actions to take root, because they corrode our democracy and tear our social fabric. That deals with my second point, on recent troubling incidents which sought to bring race, religion into politics.
Sir, my third and final point was on why bringing in race and religion into politics will bring bad outcomes for Singapore.
Sir, I am not going to go into detail on that. Through the course of this speech, I have explained why that will be bad for Singapore and Singaporeans. It is obvious – if we do not take a firm stand, some foreign countries, including those not in our immediate neighbourhood, who must have been watching our GE very carefully, will be tempted to play on ethnic sympathies to influence our politics; and all our major communities are capable of being influenced from external sources.
Sir, in conclusion, our approach to race, language and religion has been largely successful. Our brand of multiracialism is not only the bridge that brings Singaporeans of all races and religions together. But it is the crux of our being as an independent nation and our continuance as a successful country.
Now that the elections are over and emotions no longer run as high, I make this Ministerial Statement to remind ourselves as Singaporeans about the framework and fundamentals that have allowed Singapore to succeed.
It is not the first time this House is discussing this issue, but events during the recent GE warrant this being raised again. It is too serious a matter, existential for Singapore, for us to simply let it slide. And so, I decided to make the Statement at the earliest opportunity after the Opening of Parliament.
The main purpose of this Ministerial Statement is to set out: one, our fundamentals on which I hope there will be agreement; two, a clearer understanding on how we hope politicians and political parties will conduct themselves in future should these issues arise again. We must learn from what has happened. As Parliamentarians, we may debate and disagree on many things, but I hope that we can all commit to handle issues of race and religion in a responsible and sensible manner, and to uphold the integrity of Singapore's secular politics.
Sir, from time to time, we will have candidates professing that they or their party better represents and serves a specific racial, religious or some identified group. That is entirely understandable as long as it does not get into identity politics. And we need to exercise caution that one does not get into the other. We need to exercise caution on how these points are made.
In the recent GE, Deros, Mr Damanhuri, have gone too far. Other instances will be less clear. We need to handle them with care and good sense. Most important, we need deep commitment to our ideals. My Statement builds on a series of recent Government statements and speeches.
During the election, MHA and ELD issued a strong statement warning against bringing race and religion into politics. The Prime Minister also stressed that we are all Singaporeans first, regardless of our backgrounds. In the recent President's address, the President reminded us that we can never take our unity for granted and must guard it zealously. During the recent debate on the President's address, the Prime Minister again urged all political parties to conduct politics with seriousness, with integrity and a deep sense of responsibility.
So, why do we keep repeating these points over and over again? It is because these fundamental principles are central to the very existence of Singapore. We decided that we should state our position formally, robustly and unequivocally at the highest forum in our country – Parliament.
The peace and harmony in our society have been the foundation for the progress we have achieved.
Since Independence, Singapore has been transformed – the physical environment, the economic opportunities, the jobs available and the standard of living. Our people's lives have improved, regardless of their race, language or religion. All communities have benefited, including the minorities. They have done well, not only compared to where they started out, but also compared to other communities in our region. Our multiracial model has worked and we must not heedlessly and irresponsibly put it at risk.
Generations of Singaporeans have carried the torch onward. There is much more to be done to achieve the ideals of our pledge. But it is clear, looking around the world, that we can only achieve that if we steer clear of identity politics.
Finally, Sir, may I recall something from our history that few here will remember. On the very day Mr Lee Kuan Yew pledged that this will not be a Malay nation, Chinese nation, Indian nation, and that all will be equal, then-Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman said that he had asked the Johor State government to set aside 10 acres of land for any Malay in Singapore who wished to leave the newly independent country.
You might think that it might have appeared an attractive option to some of our Pioneer Generation of Malays – get some land and remain a member of the majority in Tanah Melayu. But not a single Pioneer Generation Malay took up the offer. They chose to stay in Tanah Singapura instead and build a home here. We owe them so much. If they had left, we would not have remained in multiracial country as we are now.
Also, if the Chinese majority had, at that point, refused to listen to Mr Lee, then we would not be the multiracial country that we are today. So, let us remain faithful to the hopes and dreams and aspirations of our Pioneers. Thank you, Sir. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Before I call hon Members for clarifications, I just wish to point out that pursuant to Standing Order No 23, Members may seek clarification on the Ministerial Statement, but no debate shall be allowed thereon. Members can seek clarifications by way of asking questions.
I seek Members' understanding to keep your clarifications clear and concise, so that the Minister can answer as many clarifications as possible. I would also similarly ask the Minister to also keep his answers clear and concise. Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker, and thank you, Minister, for the Statement. It appears to me that one of the issues the Minister raises is with regard to timing, in terms of how quickly the WP responded to some of the issues the Minister covered in his Statement.
Let me put that question of timing into perspective. But before I do so, let me just read out as a preamble, a short remark that I made at the doorstop interview on 26 April, one day after the MHA-ELD statement was made. And I said this, \"I think MHA and ELD have put together a message and I stand behind that message. Our political scene is for our people. We persuade Singaporeans of our value proposition and we urge all Singaporeans, regardless of race, language or religion, to judge us on our manifesto and our proposals, and what we do in Parliament for all Singaporeans, not specific communities only. I think once we go down that road, you're going to have an unnecessary politicisation of the public space and we don't want that. That's not healthy for Singapore and that's not healthy for our minority communities as well.\"
On the matter of timing, the joint MHA-ELD statement was published on 25 April. It does not refer to Noor Deros, who is a Singaporean. It makes reference to foreigners attempting to influence the GE. This comes out on 25 April, and the Minister can correct me if I am wrong, the statement comes out at about 10.00 pm on 25 April.
On 26 April, the following morning, at 9.30 am, the WP releases its statement, overnight. At 11.30 am or thereabouts, there is a doorstop interview and one of the remarks that I made include what I have just mentioned, as the preamble to this clarification.
So, on the matter of timing, I do not agree with the Minister that we took too long.
I understand Minister has an issue about the context of what was said. It could have been clearer, more unequivocal. And the Minister concedes that on 26 April, that same day the press release of the WP was released that morning, in the evening, there is a rally, and at Tampines, I make what I think the Minister says are clearer remarks and statements about race and religion. So, I have a disagreement with the Minister about the question of timing.
Who was Noor Deros before these elections? I did not know him. I am not sure whether the Minister knew him or if the Ministry knew of him, unless he was on Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS) or had served with MUIS at some point in some capacity. I am not sure. I do not know. But as far as the WP is concerned, we do not really have an operations room or a Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) office to monitor what foreigners or what people are saying about politics and where they may be venturing into territory which is dangerous.
But in the event there is something untoward or awry, the WP is not shy of coming together and trying to resolve the issue. I will give an example as a matter of clarification. The first rally we had at Anchorvale, the rally site looks, starts to turn dangerous because people are slipping and sliding, and the Police commander on the ground is unsure, uncertain what is happening. And he says, \"Look, we may have to shut the rally site down\".
So, I said, \"Let me make a remark to the crowd and ask them to keep safe\". And we deal with the situation.
So, the point I am making to the Minister is, if something is heading into dangerous territory, I think there are many ways, in the national interest, for the Government to communicate with political parties and say, \"Look, this is not on. And we are communicating this. We need to come together, resolve it, make that clear statement\".
And if the party is not prepared to make a statement, then I think the Minister is fully at liberty to make the comments that he wishes to. But I do not think it is fair to say that the WP did not take this issue seriously.
I also would like to clarify – did Noor Deros break any laws? Was a Police report made against him, or was it in the Government's contemplation to issue a restraining order against him under section 8 of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act? Because the Prime Minister decides to take a break from the hustings and made a statement in the national interest. So, just to clarify, what considerations were on the Government's mind, in terms of trying to nip this issue at the bud?
For the moment, these are my clarifications. Mr Speaker, I may clarify further, subject to what the Minister says.
Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, I think Mr Singh has confused two different issues. The first is on Deros. And in my Statement, I said that the WP statement did not reject Deros' very serious conduct in asking Muslims here to support the WP on racial and religious grounds, and asking voters in Tampines to vote for Mr Faisal Manap. I hope after the Statement we can at least have common ground that what Deros did was unacceptable. And if there is common ground that that was unacceptable, then it should have been responded to immediately. And it should have been an unequivocal rejection of what Deros said.
Second is foreign influence. I said that the initial statement by WP was not clear, but it got clearer when Mr Singh gave his doorstop, and then, it became quite clear after the Prime Minister had specifically called on political parties to make their position clear. Mr Singh then clearly, unequivocally, rejected PAS' statements during the rally. So, on I did not say that either Mr Singh or the WP had made their position clear on Deros, it should have been made clear.
I am not quite sure why there is a reference to the POFMA office or MHA or the Government, or this suggestion of should the Government have communicated with a political party in the middle of the GE.
Look, we are now here talking about Deros' meeting with the WP's Malay candidates. According to Deros, he met with all of the WP's Malay candidates. That means Mr Faisal Manap and four others. Assume that was known, Deros put up his posts on 23 and 24 April, Nomination Day and the second day. Deros talked about his meeting with the WP. He talked about his demands. He said he would canvas support for the WP, if the WP agreed to his demands and said that people should vote for Mr Faisal Manap, and this was after meeting Mr Faisal Manap and the WP's Malay candidates. Mr Faisal Manap was and is the Vice Chairman of the WP and, if I am not wrong, probably a Central Executive Committee (CEC) member as well. Mr Faisal Manap and others need the POFMA office to tell them about their meeting with Deros and his posts?
Then, there is a larger point, a more substantive point, which I have alluded to. The statement was issued on 26 April, the WP statement. As I said earlier, it did not reject Deros' position that he would ask Muslims in Singapore to vote along racial and religious lines, nor did it reject Deros' support for its anchor in Tampines, Mr Faisal Manap. Instead, what it said is that no commitments, promises or agreements had been made to Deros.
That is something that you might find lawyers drafting for each other. You do not see that in political statements, which ought to be clear and unequivocal. And I think Mr Singh, if I heard him correctly, conceded that the statement could have been clearer, and I thank him for that.
So, it should have been squarely stated that we are rejecting all of this. When there is no clear response, it raises questions. And if you look at it logically, do we agree that what Deros said was serious? Obviously, yes. I think all of us, regardless of party affiliation, would agree to that. Do we agree that it required a clear and immediate rejection without any qualification and it was important to do so? Listening to Mr Singh just now, I think he accepts that.
Can the lack of a clear rejection of Deros' statement be an oversight? Look, Mr Low Thia Khiang has described Mr Singh as \"a good politician\", meaning a politician who understands politics. Mr Low said this last year. So, the lack of clear response, a vague response must have been a deliberate choice based on a calculation of interests. I am just taking it point by point, as a series of logical conclusions, that there is some benefit in keeping it less clear and that Deros can swing some votes.
Those who understand politics will know this. This is not rocket science. That sort of calculation may bring some short-term benefits. And whatever I say about Deros also goes for PAS. But as I said, long-term damage to our country. It goes against our National Pledge, it goes against our multiracial ideals. So, being true to our pledge has to go beyond citing it during GE rallies. It must mean putting it in practice even when it is difficult to do so. Sincere belief requires acting true to the words of the pledge, even when it may cost some votes.
So, I will not go into any of this detail. I refrain from saying all of this bluntly in my speech. The main purpose of my speech was to say, let us come together, keep faith with our fundamentals of multiracialism and not play identity politics. My hope and the purpose of my speech is that we will learn from what had happened, move forward as one people, Singaporeans together, agreed on the fundamentals; close ranks when people like Deros and foreign parties like PAS try to divide us and say and agree that we will reject such attempts immediately and clearly, even if we may calculate them to be in our short-term political interest.
Let us just be clear today, we do not need to refer to the POFMA office, we do not need to refer to the Government or say the Government did not tell us. It is really what each of us is responsible for and what responsible conduct means. When your Vice Chairman is meeting together with the slate of candidates and there are these demands, you do not need to be told by the Government, really. I hope we can agree on these basic points.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, before I go into that, I do not think the Minister has answered the point about section 8A of the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act and what Noor Deros, a Singaporean, said and did, and how the Government responded.
Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you for reminding me. Sir, I thank Mr Singh through you. I do not want to go into future hypotheticals. As for the past, the Government decided to take the approach that it has done, which is to issue a statement through MHA and ELD, and then make this Ministerial Statement. What might happen in the future, we will assess the facts of each case.
Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you for that, Minister. Indeed, there is an assessment made. And my own view on this matter is, when a nobody claims that there is a set of demands that he has of a political party, one has to think of a number of factors. The Streisand effect – by raising the matter, are you actually, in the heat of an election, bringing the issue to greater focus? So, by dealing with it on 23 or 24 April, points made by a certain Noor Deros, who really no one knows. I certainly did not know of him. He later on, on 6 May, accepts that WP did not agree to anything that he said. He also later on, congratulated Prime Minister Mr Lawrence Wong. He speaks well of the Government.
Ultimately, in the heat of the elections, attentions are all over the place. And for an opposition party indeed, Nomination Day – I do not think I need to state here how even the PAP had to move candidates last minute – your attention is all over the place.
But what I would say is that we had made our views quite clear on foreign interference. I understand the Minister says that the statement on Noor Deros could have been clearer, I accept that. I think we can make certain things very clear. But my point is if we talk about the national interest, if this is so important to the Government, there are other ways to deal with it collectively as one Singapore.
On the matter of PAS, I think the Minister made some extended comments about PAS. About one year ago, at this time, we know that PAP Malay MPs went to Malaysia. The Malay Action Bureau in particular went to Malaysia and there was some communication with PAS, and on Petir, the PAP publication outlet, the mast head says, \"The PAP story told from within\". \"Malaysian politics has evolved. In the past there was only one dominant party, now there are multiple Malay parties and those with Malay components\", and this is the former Malay Muslim Affairs Minister saying, \"I thought it would be good for party activists to be introduced and build bridges with these parties and personalities.\" It is an extensive article and the Minister also said, \"but I thought it would be useful to deploy our Malay activists in a way that would relive the purpose of the MAB: how do we help the party win over the Malay community now?\"
I am not sure what is the party's approach to this matter, but what I would be interested in is, given this relationship that the PAP and PAS seem to have, was there any attempt made by PAP Members or intermediaries in private to communicate with PAS and to inform them not to interfere in our elections forthwith? And at the same time, did the Government make any intervention or formally raised this matter with the Malaysian counterparts as to not to do this in future?
Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you, Sir. Sir, let us keep the two separate. On Deros, I think listening to Mr Singh, he agrees that it should have been and could have been clearer. And let us just remember the person meeting Deros was the Vice Chairman of the party, a CEC member, a very senior leader, he was meeting Deros together with all the WP Malay candidates. So, let us just take responsibility for it and agree that the statement that came out was not unequivocal. It should have been clearer. And I think Mr Singh agrees that it should have been clearer. There should have a clear rejection of Deros' demands. There should have been a rejection of Deros' support for WP's Malay candidates. There should have been a rejection of his support for Mr Faizal Manap. It was not done immediately and when it was done, it was done without a clear rejection.
What did we learn from this? Based on what Mr Singh agrees, in future, we need to be very aware and we need to be clear when we make our rejections. So, I thank him for that.
The Government should be more active, I think is Mr Singh's second point. I think we all have to work on this together, but that can only come about if we all agree on the fundamentals. The Government issued the statement, MHA. The Prime Minister made an extraordinary move because it was so important, and he came out and spoke in public during the GE, and said this is not acceptable. And I think that then prodded WP into making clear statements on PAS but not so much on Deros.
On the relationship between the PAP and PAS, Sir, there are a number of political parties in Singapore: PAP, WP, SDP, the Progress Singapore Party. Mr Singh knows that they all have interactions with various political parties around the world. So, let us not seek to confuse these issues. This is not an attempt to try and confuse the public. The PAP can reach out to a whole variety of parties including PAS and the United Malays National Organization (UMNO), and around the region in Indonesia and other places. That is part and parcel of understanding what is going on around the world.
That is very different from accepting a foreign endorsement of our candidates. If PAS had endorsed the PAP candidates of any race, I think this House, knowing as it does our philosophy, can be sure that we will have rejected it immediately.
So, let us not confuse these issues. Let us stick to what we are talking about here. One is Deros' endorsement of WPs' Malay candidates, leading clearly into an identity politics situation; and the other, PAS' endorsement of WPs' Malay/Muslim candidates. That is what we are talking about. And we are talking about how do you respond to that. I hope we can agree and move on.
Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Just a matter of clarification. I think the Minister started by referring to meeting Deros and I mentioned quite clearly during the elections that he gate-crashed the meeting that Mr Faisal Manap was having with someone else. My understanding from Mr Faisal Manap is there was no arrangement to meet him specifically. But this is just a fact by the by, but the points that the Minister has made in terms of not wanting such interference, rejecting individuals who attempt to use identity politics to win votes, I can agree with that. And I think most Singaporeans will agree with that.
The point I wish to highlight, and I am not sure whether the Minister has been unequivocal about it, is when something like this happens, there is an asymmetry of information. The Government has a perspective which is far broader than a small political party. And my point is, if it is serious enough, in the Minister's words, for the Prime Minister to take measures such as stopping campaigning halfway to clarify a point, I do not think it is too difficult to reach out in the national interest to get that clarification also from all political parties as one Singapore. I hope the Minister can consider this in future.
Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, we will certainly consider Mr Singh's suggestion. But what I would like is a more unequivocal acceptance of responsibility.
If there is any asymmetry of information, it is that WP had all the information because neither the Government nor the PAP met with Mr Deros. I mean, however the meeting took place, Mr Deros met with five of the Member's candidates, including the Member's Vice Chairman. He said whatever he said. Until today, I do not know what was said. I only know what he reports as having been said and I know that nothing has been said by WP about what transpired other than that no promises, commitments or agreements were made.
So, yes, there is an asymmetry of information – and that is, WP knows what happened; we do not. We only know what Deros has put up. And even with that asymmetry of information, knowing what we did, it strikes us and it seems to me to strike anyone, that this is not acceptable. And if it is not acceptable, for example Mr Singh issued a clear and unequivocal rejection of PAS' interference. He knew enough to say that he is, as Mr Low described him, \"a politician who understands politics\". He was able to do that after the Prime Minister called for a clear rejection. He never did that, and WP never did that about Deros.
Let us just say that is why we waited for the elections to be over, emotions to come down, and we make the Statement. As I said, I was not going to go into this level of detail, we draw a line, we move forward as one Singapore. In future, if these things happen, the framework hopefully is clear enough, we all accept and move ahead.
If you want the Government to tell you what to do and what not to do in the middle of the elections, the Government is also mindful of being seen to interfere with individual political parties. So, we need to be mindful of that, because it can be politicised. Maybe Mr Singh is welcoming of a phone call to say this is not on, but I can imagine a number of other political parties might say, you are trying to threaten me in the middle of a GE. So, we need to be very careful.
So, the statements were clear, but carefully drafted. That is the MHA-ELD statement and the Prime Minister decided to come out and say it because this is fundamental for Singapore. So, how could it be any clearer? He said it. He said, reject this; reject identity politics, reject foreign interference. So, we did do it. If Mr Singh is talking about a specific reach-out to WP, we will think about it.
But let us all commit, in the first place, to saying we all understand, under no circumstances is this acceptable and we will be clear in future.
Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Sir, I do not intend to repeat myself. Just to share that the MHA-ELD statement, again did not refer to Deros. The only time it came up officially from the Government was when the Prime Minister brought Noor Deros up specifically. So, our statement focused on foreign interference.
But as the Prime Minister made his press conference, this was on 26 April at around noon-ish; same night, we made our position very clear on needing support from individuals on racial and religious grounds. We do not need that sort of support. So, I think that is unequivocal. I do not think I can be clearer than that. But the substance of what the Minister has gone on in his Ministerial Statement is not objectionable.
Mr K Shanmugam: I think Mr Singh is confusing two different issues, Sir. The MHA-ELD statement talked about foreign interference. It also dealt with a separate issue: religion and politics.
In response, the WP statement dealt with religion and politics, and said no agreements, commitments or promises had been made. On PAS, it said something else, and then I have referred to what Mr Singh said in his doorstop and further at the rally.
So, let us keep the two separate. Let us not confuse the two.
On Deros, MHA-ELD statement does talk about religion and politics. It does not mention Deros, but it says religion and politics ought not to be mixed.
And as I said, the WP knows, I mean, it is Noor Deros. They met with him and he made all these demands, he made all these calls. I think Mr Singh has said yes, it could have been clearer, instead of just saying no agreements, promises or commitments. It should have said we reject his demands; we rejected it when we met him. I do not know. I hope his demands were rejected when there was the meeting. We rejected his demands when we met him. We reject his demands now. This is completely unacceptable.
That is all that I am saying and I think it is not a very difficult thing to agree to. Let us not confuse that with the PAS statement.
On the PAS statement, I said it started out a little equivocal, then the doorstop, it became clearer, and after the Prime Minister gave his press conference at night, it was quite clear by Mr Singh.
So, keep the two separate. The Government dealt with the two different issues, both through the MHA-ELD statement, though it did not mention Deros, and through the Prime Minister's press conference.
Mr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Sir. I thank the Minister for the Statement. I do agree that identity politics would be disastrous for Singapore, especially minorities. And I thank him for the Statement.
However, listening to the Minister's Statement, I cannot help but notice that some may interpret his Statement as suggesting that a particular group or community, in this case, the Malay/Muslim community, should bear some responsibility for allowing such sentiments to take root in the first place.
Is the hon Minister suggesting that? Or would he not agree with me that it is, in fact, part of a broader issue or trend that political actors, both here and abroad, are taking advantage of our racial or religious sensitivities for their own gain? And if so, it can happen to any communities, any race, any religion or groups like new citizens.
Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, I think we should be clear. I was not singling out any particular community. Our Malay/Muslim community during this GE was a victim of these tactics. They did not ask for these provocations nor did they support these tactics. They share the same strong commitment as any other community, to Singapore's multiracial, multi-religious approach. The Malay/Muslim community has stayed calm in spite of the deliberate attempts to rile up racial and religious sentiments among the community.
This time, these people whom I have mentioned targeted the Malay/Muslim community. Previously in other GEs, the Chinese community has been targeted. Those who play identity politics do not just target one community. In fact, one thrust of my speech is that if we go down this road of identity politics, everyone will be targeting the Chinese community for obvious reasons.
So, after the statement by the Government was issued, MHA and ELD and the Prime Minister's press conference, many members of the Malay/Muslim communities spoke up to affirm their support for a multiracial Singapore.
In every society there will be an attempt to draw invidious comparisons to mobilise different communities. As I have said in my Ministerial Statement, we have seen this in many countries and that is what was being tried in this GE – to divide Singaporeans. The attempts included the attempts by PAS. And we can see how societies are getting increasingly divided.
So, let us continue to stay firm to our principles and avoid the pull of identity politics. But certainly, it is not the Malay/Muslim community that is targeted. They are the victims.
Mr Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan.
Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for reminding us all of the absolutely fundamental principles with regard to identity politics. But I would also like to ask the Minister to clarify if he is also saying that it would be wrong for any political party to appeal to voters based on what the party can offer to any specific community? Or is he also saying that it would be wrong for an individual to question whether the Government has done enough for any community or to demand the Government to do more for a specific community?
Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, I think it is perfectly acceptable for political parties, candidates, politicians to say that their policies will benefit a specific community. In fact, if you look at my Ministerial Statement, one of the key points is that this Government's policies over the last 60 years have benefited the minorities: Malays, Indians and others. And that if we had followed the norms set in other places in the world, minorities would have been in a far worse position.
So, it is entirely possible for a PAP politician to go and say the PAP is the best party to protect minority interest or protect Malay/Muslim interest, to protect Indian interest. It is perfectly possible to say that. And it is perfectly possible for someone to counter and say that is not correct.
If you look at the Malay/Muslim community, it has been a long-standing commitment of the PAP government to support and uplift the Malay/Muslim community. It dates back to pre-Independence, to the days of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, and successive Prime Ministers have reiterated this fundamental commitment.
That is why our Constitution recognises the special position of Malays. It states that it shall be the responsibility of the Government to protect, safeguard, support, foster, promote their political, educational, religious, economic, social and cultural interest, and the Malay language.
So, it is entirely acceptable to say or contradict that one of the Government's key policies is the upliftment of the Malay/Muslim community. There is nothing wrong with advocating ways to advance a particular community or discussing legitimate community concerns.
But when we advocate for the concerns of the Malay/Muslim community or any other community, we must ensure that our advocacy is conducted responsibly in a manner that upholds Singapore's unity.
So, just as the Government's policies benefit the Malay/Muslim community, they must also benefit all other Singaporeans, and there is a distinction between advocating for the legitimate needs of a community versus pitting the different racial and religious groups against each other or calling on Singaporeans to vote along racial and religious lines. The latter is what causes division.
Take Deros as an example. He is entitled to his opinions, ideas and suggestions, regardless of how absurd these were. But what was troubling was his call for Singaporean Malay/Muslims, to vote along racial and religious lines for specific candidates. As I said in my speech, if you go down this route, if you go down the route that Mr Damanhuri has advocated and Deros is advocating, who will benefit? The largest groups will be the ones that all political parties will cater to.
Who will suffer? Not the Chinese. And that will be the road to Singapore's ruin. Because, ultimately, the Chinese will also suffer because we will not remain a country in the way we are. Everyone will suffer.
So, when raising issues that relate to particular racial or religious community, the tone matters, the setting matters. We have to adopt a give-and-take approach. Avoid a zero-sum mentality. Avoid casting every issue as an ideological battle where no compromises can be made. Otherwise, we risk reducing our common space and inviting pushback from other communities. And never insult or belittle any racial or religious group, or attempt to pit certain groups against others.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim. Mr Kenneth Tiong and Dr Charlene Chen, I have seen your hands. I will come to you next.
Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim (East Coast): Speaker, I thank the Coordinating Minister for reminding us of the importance of believing how we serve everyone and that this is a Singapore for all. And I also appreciate Members' appreciation of peace and harmony, being important tenets that we commit to.
I would like to seek clarifications from the Minister on two fronts: one is \"when\" and one is \"how\". The Minister cited Mr Noor Deros and Mr Damanhuri as an illustration of attempts to bring race and religion into electoral politics. While the Minister has mentioned earlier that he was looking for the earliest opportunity to bring this up and also was mindful about being seen as threatening smaller political parties, could the Minister help us understand why are we raising these concerns now, in particular, and not back then? And furthermore, what again warrants revisiting it today? Was that also above and beyond incidents that we recently saw with regard to, for example, Masjid Al-Istiqamah?
On the \"how\", expanding a little bit on the hon Member's question, as well as Deputy Speaker's question, about hesitance, I wanted to highlight that minority voices may hesitate to speak up on discrimination. And so, how can we, as Singapore, ensure a safer space for us to be able to do that, to ensure that Singaporeans can continue to have difficult, tough but meaningful conversation on race and religion, in particular, by taking the stand of preserving mutual respect when doing so and ensuring that it is not misused or not allowed for exploitation, especially due to external forces?
Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, on why now, I have explained. During the elections, the Government issued a statement through MHA and ELD. The Prime Minister spoke as Prime Minister, the highest level of intervention. And he said what our principles ought to be, and he set out and asked political parties to make clear their position. And that had some impact. After that, the President's speech mentioned it, the importance. Then, the Prime Minister again spoke during the Debate on the President's speech.
As I said in my Ministerial Statement, why are we repeating this over and over again? Because it is fundamental. Without an agreement on this basic point, Singapore will not survive. It is existential. Which is why I have pitched my speech as one that I hope all sides can agree on, as Singaporeans, and learn from, for the future. That is very important – how do we deal with such incidents in future? I think responsibility means doing that well.
After the Prime Minister's intervention in the Debate on President's speech, this is the earliest opportunity. This is an important issue. This is the earliest opportunity. We decided that it should be dealt with in Parliament. And I am speaking in Parliament at the earliest possible opportunity. So, that answers \"why now?\"
On the incident relating to pork, the items of meat being sent to various mosques, the matter is under investigation. Members know that somebody has been charged. Members would have heard me say that we take this very seriously; it is not acceptable. And we will deal with it very stiffly in terms of the charging position that we take and decisions that are taken from the Government side. Then, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) will have to independently look at it. And what happens in Court, that is for the Courts to decide.
But I am not speaking today because of the incidents relating to the mosque, just in case Members get that impression.
The sequence for my speech today is, as I have said: after the President's speech, this is the first occasion. And it is a speech that seeks to set out the framework and fundamentals – first, to remind ourselves; and second, to guide us for the future, for all political parties, so that we accept what is precious in Singapore and we say we will protect it.
On safe spaces for minorities or for anyone, really, I mentioned it in my speech. There are various fora, there are young people, unions, other associations, grassroots, a variety of formats where these issues can be raised. Safe spaces. Nobody pulls punches on the substance of things, but they are respectful of each other.
Beyond that, if people want to organise fora on their own, they are welcome to do so and discuss these issues. All we ask is: first of all, do not attack other religions or races, because that will breach the law and we will enforce the law. Two, be respectful and take the approach of \"give and take\". Because if you push with only your views, then others too, will push with only their views. Remember that we are in a multiracial, multi-religious society, so approach it with common sense and give and take.
And within that framework, it does not mean that you must accept discrimination, you must accept racism. You are entitled to bring it up. And in fact, recently, legislation has been put in place that protects minorities and others from having their employment terminated for the wrong reasons, including that of race or religion.
So, the Government will continue doing it in terms of protecting everyone, in trying to create a bigger common space. It is also individual responsibility. But my speech should not be understood as saying, \"Oh, you cannot speak about race or religion or discrimination or racism\". The way to deal with those is to speak about it, but do so, have a care, do so sensibly.
Mr Speaker: Mr Kenneth Tiong.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): One clarification. The Minister has set clear bars for responding to foreign influence: immediacy, categorical rejection and explicit disavowal, regardless of ambiguity or delay.
Will the Minister now apply those same standards to Michael Petraeus, the Polish national, whose \"Critical Spectator\" platform has published racially charged commentary on Singapore politics, including a piece titled, \"WP abandons Muslim voters, turns to the Chinese\"? His platform was previously taken down from Facebook for policy violations. He continues to try to influence our politics from his foreign perch, this time favouring the PAP.
Will the PAP categorically reject and disavow his support today, just as the Minister demanded that WP do so within 24 hours?
Mr K Shanmugam: I thank the Member for this question because different people ask this. I think it arises from a misunderstanding of the law.
There are a variety of people who have commentaries running on Singapore. The Economist comments on politics in Singapore. The New York Times runs articles on Singapore. The South China Morning Post runs articles on Singapore. And Michael Petraeus is not the only person who is a foreigner who runs commentaries, sometimes for the Government, sometimes against the Government, sometimes favouring the WP. We can cite various people who favour the WP who are foreigners. That does not amount to being within the definition interfering with our local politics. If we took that definition, every day we will be doing nothing but taking down and trying to object to various international journals. Hundreds of articles appear, hundreds of posts appear. It is not the Government's business to be going and censoring all of this, nor is it going to be possible.
But if there is a specific attempt to interfere in the elections and if \"Critical Spectator\" has put out any such post, I would welcome Mr Tiong to send it to us and we will take a look at it. As far as I know, there is not one, but I could be mistaken because I do not follow his posts and nothing has been sent to me.
Mr Speaker: Mr Tiong.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: I thank the Minister for clarifying that the PAP will not be categorically rejecting Michael Petraeus' actions.
Mr K Shanmugam: I ask the Member not to put words in my mouth. I would say I would invite the WP to tell me – would they take the position that we ought to be censoring and objecting to every article on politics in Singapore by any foreigner and would that apply to all the international journals?
If Mr Tiong's position is that, and that we should similarly take down all posts by any foreigner, and if we put forward legislation to that effect, if WP would support it, then we will talk about it.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazlina, do you have a further clarification? Go ahead.
Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim: Thank you, Speaker. I think it is important to recognise the fact that Singapore is for Singapore, and that is why we are all here today.
I was reflecting on Minister's speech on identity and what it means. It is just a small part of what we can do and what we have to offer and who we serve.
I wanted to clarify the point about the Malay community rising above targeted intentions during hustings and actually, really seeing the unity of Singapore coming together and taking all of our identities as strengths and really serving for Singapore for all, not so much feeling victimised, but realising that while there could have been targets or attempts, it is really about coming together for what is best.
Mr K Shanmugam: Sorry. Can I invite the Member to repeat the question, because I missed part of it? I am sorry.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazlina.
Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim: Thank you, Minister. It was more of a clarification to state that while there were potentially attempts to make the Malay community victims during hustings, falling for identity politics, we, as a community, I believe, rose above it and took the point of really coming together and realising that identity is a strength.
So, that was a point of clarification on not falling victim, but wanting to rise above it, while targeted. Would the Minister see it in the same light?
Mr K Shanmugam: Yes, I will agree with that description and that is, in fact, what I said as well, maybe not as elegantly as the Member.
Mr Speaker: Dr Charlene Chen.
Dr Charlene Chen (Tampines): Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for his Ministerial Statement. I would just like to say that Tampines has a very diverse, yet mutually respectful community. Our residents in Tampines would agree that Singapore's survival depends on our unity. And I believe that harmony comes from confidence and trust and sometimes, not avoiding difficult conversations.
So, beyond calling out and effecting the law in response to potential attempts to influence voting behaviour along racial and religious lines, how can we strengthen public awareness and civic education to help our Singaporeans recognise and reject such messages, so that they do not become victims of politically motivated individuals?
Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, thank you. I would say, two, or maybe three parts to this. The first is, to do what we have done up to now, eschew race-based politics in the mainstream, do our best and what we do every weekend, go down to the ground as MPs, have events which bring in all the different races together. Continue with all the policies that you see in the Annex, including the Ethnic Integration Policy, our races mixed in integrated schools and other areas, and continue to make sure our legal framework protects everyone and give everyone the confidence. That is important.
Of course, everyone must feel, regardless of race, language or religion, that they are participating in the economic progress and in the social progress of Singapore.
The second is when there are attempts to play the race card or the religious card, I think we have to be clear and we have to stand firm, which is why I said, it would have been far easier for me not to make the Statement and just move on. But I think something good is achieved in setting out a clear framework and heartening to hear Mr Singh say, \"Yes, we could have been clearer on Deros.\"
On timing, to me, every day matters. He says he disagrees, but I am sure, on reflection, he will agree that during campaign, it should just have been immediate, the moment it comes out, a response.
So, I think we have achieved some degree of common ground, and we hope that through Statements of this nature, serious discussions in Parliament, our understanding increases. Every Member of Parliament here goes away with a better understanding of the framework. You will be able to talk to your grassroots leaders, to your residents and also put the points across. This is what matters in Singapore.
And going forward, we have to continue with that. There will always be attempts to divide us, both from outside and from within, and it is up to us, each one of us, to be standing strong against it and, essentially, our society has to be given the immunity. Immunity comes from these discussions. And when the Leader of the Opposition stands up and says he agrees, then I think the immunity increases.
Mr Speaker: Mr Andre Low.
Mr Low Wu Yang Andre (Non-Constituency Member): Speaker, I have one clarification for the Minister. In his speech, he referred to one of the policy pillars being our reasonable calibrated approach to discussing such views in public, referring to religious issues. I want to refer to the Minister's citing of the IPS 2024 survey on racial and religious harmony and the headline statistic in Annex C, where it is stated that 65.4% of respondents rated Singapore's racial and religious harmony is high or very high, and this is on the uptrend from the last time the survey was run.
Of course, this is a heartening statistic, but there is some nuance to it. That same report highlighted that there was a perception gap between what the Chinese majority felt versus minorities, quite a significant one, as well as a perception gap between the younger generation and the older generation. Those 35 and below felt that racial and religious harmony was worse than the older respondents.
So, my clarification for the Minister is: would the Minister consider recalibrating that reasonable and calibrated approach that the Government has taken with racial and religious harmony in Singapore, given these findings? Maybe perhaps it is not working for certain demographics, such as our younger Singaporeans, who may feel that safe spaces, as my fellow Member referred to, can be more open. Because if we are constantly wary of tripping over, whether it is actual legislation or, perhaps, unseen \"out of bound\" markers, perhaps these conversations might not be had in the most open and respectful manner.
Mr K Shanmugam: I thank the Member for the clarification. As I listen to him, and I think it is a point he might have made in his maiden speech as well, all these fora that the Government talks about are curated, they are not \"real\" fora, real fora is where people come and they can speak whatever they like.
We have many examples of such real fora. Look around the world. The US, they have such fora. Are we colonised in our mind so much that we have to continue to hark back to these theories which have failed all around the world? What has happened in the US? What has happened in the UK, where they have all these fora that the Member has refer to? What has happened in France? What has happened in Germany? Go look at the statistics. The far right in Germany is getting into power. The far right in France is now getting into power, too.
Because when you allow such free-flowing expressions without any kind of legal framework, what is going to happen? Identity politics. What will be the identity politics in Singapore? I am Chinese, you are Chinese. Vote for me. Why do you want to vote for that Malay or that Indian?
So, you have the GRC systems. You have the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act. Why do not we look at what we have and objectively ask, is it better than what is there elsewhere? That is our first question. Is our situation better than what you see in the US, in Europe and in many Asian countries? Yes? No?
If the answer is yes, what has worked. Something has worked. I have listed the things that have worked. Is it perfect? No. I said it is work-in-progress. Perhaps, it will always be work-in-progress because of the deep-seated human emotions. And I think it is very pertinent then to say how are the demographics working out. Is there a difference? Are the younger people less accepting? Is there an issue? I think that is something that should be looked at. But the answer then is not to jump immediately to models which have failed miserably everywhere else. The answer is to say, how do we reach these people. How do we get them to come and talk?
These so-called curated fora, all it means is, a safe place is created, different people with different views come together. Moderators come in. They discuss. It is hard-hitting, and it is on substance. Nobody pulls their punches, but they are respectful. And as I said earlier, there is nothing to stop Mr Low or anyone else from organising more of such on their own terms, as long as they do not insult any race or religion and hopefully, they will encourage people to be more respectful.
But the answer is not to do away with the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act or Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. That is a false solution. That simply means that you are colonised in your minds. I am not saying Mr Andre Low is, but I frequently read from, often foreigners, telling us, advising us on how we should run our country, and among that would be you should not have all these laws. I say, look at yourself first before you prescribe to me.
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, I have a clarification with the Minister. But before that, I would like to thank the Minister for his speech where he mentioned the historical fact that the Malay is being offered land back in the 1960s and none has actually gone over during the 1960s. I think it that sort of brings out the fact about our older generation of the Malay community being part of the Singapore's identity. So, I thank Minister for highlighting that.
Mr Speaker, my clarification is in relation to the discussion earlier. I have been hearing the issue about what the Leader of the Opposition has mentioned. I find it hard to believe that the Leader of the Opposition is somewhat suggesting that the Vice Chairman Mr Faisal Manap did not know who Mr Deros is and what were the implications of his endorsement, given that his reach is quite significant online and his positions have been quite clear. And I think it is on both sides – the PAP Malay MPs and of course, the WP Malay MPs, would know Mr Deros back then.
So, my clarification is somewhat related to that, in some ways in terms of the guidelines and framework. Can the Minister share a bit more about the guidelines and framework pre- and, I think, because the situation happened during the heat of the GEs, how can we be more clear, going forward, in terms of how the guidelines and framework that he has shared. And I truly support the fact that having a very clear guideline and framework as he has shared during his Ministerial Statement, will go a long way in in bringing a bit more clear direction into how we should deal with issues in relation to race and religion going forward.
Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, on the points relating to Mr Pritam Singh and the WP and Mr Faisal Manap, I have said what I needed to say. Listening carefully to Mr Pritam Singh, he does not say Mr Faisal Manap did not know. He does not say that the WP Malay/Muslim candidates did not know. So, anyway, it is obvious that they know about Mr Deros. They went to meet Deros. What was discussed? As I said, we do not know. Deros put out his posts. We have talked about it. I think Mr Pritam Singh agrees it should have been responded to clearly. I think we leave it at that.
In terms of the framework and guidelines, there is one set of hard framework and guidelines in the law. Then, there is common sense and the way we have applied. And frankly, it has not been too bad in Singapore. Most people have kept to that framework of one of trying to achieve consensus, trying to achieve a common ground and increase the common space.
And in my speech, I have given some indicators. You do not need to pull back on the substance, but remember, it is a multiracial society, you have demands, others have demands too. Think about it and then see what is a give-and-take approach. But that does not mean you ought to allow yourself to be discriminated against. You should not agree or keep quiet when there is racism. But in terms of demands for the community, what do you want? What can others ask? Remember, in a democracy, everyone can demand. So, what is reasonable? How do we mediate these? And if you leave it for a free-for-all, the domination will be by the majority community.
So, we need politicians to be actually in there as leaders to try and give a framework, and bring good sense to these discussions and guide. And not just politicians, but community leaders, religious leaders. So, in Singapore, a lot of that goes on, that constant linkage and the interactions between Government, community leaders, religious leaders, MPs on the ground. That is Singapore's another secret sauce. That is why we succeed so far.
But as Mr Low points out, some of the statistics for the younger generation are slightly different. We have to look at that. We will look at that, but there are many reasons for it, among which is the role of the Internet and external influences which are coming in, and people now forming tribes on the net among themselves and not forming relationships and communities on the ground. And therefore, it becomes more difficult to reach out to them and get them to buy in into shared values, because their shared values are with their own net communities. That is also happening. So, these studies are going on.
And also, with regard to the Malay community and as Ms Hazlina said and the Member have alluded to, I said they were the victims, meaning they were being the targets. But they were bigger and they rose, they did not allow themselves to become victims. They rose above it and they dealt with it.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I did not intend to participate further in this exchange. But as Member Saktiandi seems to suggest, I shared, publicly, the circumstances which relate to how Mr Noor Deros met up with certain WP candidates. Mr Noor Deros himself, in a post on 6 May, says he was invited by an ustaz delegated by Mr Faisal Manap. Those are his views.
This idea, just like the Minister says, we meet with people from all walks of life. I believe there was a CNA article shortly after the elections. Ministers Ong Ye Kung and Chee Hong Tat have no dealings with Fujian gang member, Su Haijin, says press secretaries, \"As Ministers, they meet a diverse range of people at various events and gatherings.\" The key point to note is Mr Noor Deros has some views. He wants to advance a certain view of society. The WP rejected it.
Mr K Shanmugam: I think we need to be very clear, Sir. WP never rejected Deros' views, I think, never rejected his endorsement, never rejected him saying, \"Vote for Mr Faisal Manap over Minister Masagos.\" WP rejected passes, overtures and endorsements through Mr Pritam Singh's rally speech.
On Deros, the most that was said was that we made no commitments, promises or agreements. And then, during subsequent doorstops, Mr Singh made various statements about Deros being a nobody. But Mr Singh can let me know if ever there was a rejection of Deros's endorsement of WP's candidates, a clear rejection.
Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I am not going to go beyond what we said during the elections. That would be correct, because that was what was said.
But the point that I made early on before this exchange is, it was quite unequivocal in my understanding. By the time the matter came to a head at the Tampines rally, the statements that were made, I think, it was very clear where we stood on involvement of race or religion in politics.
If somebody comes along and says, \"I am of a certain race, and WP should support us because we are taking certain identity politics type of arguments forward.\" We will reject those, as we have to.
Mr K Shanmugam: I am glad to hear that, except that it was not done for this election. Deros' endorsement on the basis of race and religion was not rejected during the last GE. We hope that going forward, it will be rejected unequivocally and immediately.
What was done was to say, we do not know who he is, you know, he is a nobody, and we have made no promises, agreements or commitments. Which is very different from a rejection. And Mr Singh knows what a rejection sounds like, because he was clear and unequivocal after the Prime Minister called for a clear rejection. He rejected PAS' endorsement, but he never rejected – neither WP nor Mr Singh ever rejected – Deros' endorsement of WP's Malay candidates, nor quite crucially, Deros' endorsement of Mr Faisal Manap for Tampines.
Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I just want to clarify this for the record and I think it is important that I do so. This is an extract of a question that was asked to me during the doorstop. And the Minister can take a view whether WP rejected what Mr Deros was proposing. In my view, I believe we did.
The question was, \"We saw the post that WP has put up this morning\" – this is from the journalist – \"regarding foreign interference and regarding the WP's Muslim candidate meeting with the Malaysian activist, Noor Deros\" – that is wrong, he is Singaporean – \"so could you walk us through some details of the meeting? When did the meeting take place?\" And then it goes on, \"And was it part of the consideration that WP fielded Mr Faisal Manap in Tampines to meet with the Tampines MP Masagos? Is it a coincidence that he is the Muslim Affairs Minister in this area? Was the meeting part of the consideration following?”
My reply, \"No, absolutely not. Let me add to what has been already shared by way of the media statement this morning. What had happened was that one of our Muslim committee members in one of the mosques in Aljunied wanted to speak to Mr Faisal and to the Malay members of the party. And what happened was that the meeting was supposed to take place with some ulama, some senior Malay/Muslim religious leaders. There was no indication that this individual would be joining in the meeting. So, when the meeting started, he was there, and my understanding is he had this list of demands. And of course, as our statement makes it quite clear, there is no situation of, I quote, 'if the WP pushes forward this agenda, I will support you.' I am sorry. We do not work politics like that in Singapore. We do not work politics like that in Workers’ Party. People have views. I think Government officials, even Ministers, meet with various members of religious groups in Singapore. So do we. And if this gentleman thinks that his advocacy will lead to the issues being brought up by the Workers’ Party, I think he is sadly mistaken.\"
Sir, in my view, that is a rejection of what Mr Deros is trying to put forth. And I do not intend to repeat myself, but in the broad approach that the Minister is suggesting, going forward, in terms of ensuring that religion, race is not involved, or it does not mix with politics, we can agree with that. And I think most sensible Singaporeans, and the vast majority of Singaporeans, I would add, would agree with that.
The Ministerial Statement today was about race or religion. I want to pick up on a second point which Mr Low was alluding to. I believe after the last elections, the ones before, in GE2020, a Minister himself came out to say that an older generation of Singaporeans has a certain approach with regard to race and religion; and a younger generation take a different approach.
Can I confirm with the Minister, is there a new framework that the Government is considering in view of this difference of approach in addressing race or religion issues? Can we, for example, see more safe spaces or different style of trying to deal with race or religion issues, particularly for the reasons that the Minister states – the nature of social media and how a certain tribalism can develop in society?
Mr K Shanmugam: There are two different parts. I think, Sir, Mr Singh also knows what he said about PAS, when there was a clear and categorical rejection of PAS' endorsement, so I do not want to keep repeating myself. When it came to PAS, after the Prime Minister called for it, there was a clear rejection of the endorsement. We unequivocally reject, and we do not need their support.
When it came to Noor Deros, it was all about, \"Well, it does not mean that we are going to carry on with his policies. It does not mean who is he, and so on.\" But the crucial point is, it is very easy to have said \"we reject\". Anyway, I think the point has been made, but more important is what is for the future.
As regards ways of engaging, what I would say is, what we have done so far has worked very well. At the same time, to say that we have achieved the best possible way of doing things is a road to disaster, because you need to be constantly alert to changing circumstances.
And we read the surveys, just as Mr Singh does and Mr Low does, and others do. We all have our different interpretations. I do not necessarily agree with all the interpretations he puts forward. But on many issues, demographically, there are different viewpoints, and it is important to analyse them carefully, not jump to conclusions. What are the reasons for these diverse viewpoints? On some issues, the younger people are more nationalistic and more Singaporean compared with older generations. And we find that younger Singaporeans are less prone to foreign influence, compared with some demographics in the older generation. So, there are these variances and what influences are working on them. Often, we find that these are influences from outside of Singapore.
So, there are a variety of things that the Government is doing and also, is constantly analysing. But we always welcome ideas on how we can do this better and if they are workable, we will consider.
Mr Speaker: After two and a half hours, I believe all clarifications sought have been addressed by the Minister.
Order. End of Ministerial Statement. Introduction of Government Bills. Second Minister for Defence.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Finance (Income Taxes) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Income Tax Act 1947 and the Multinational Enterprise (Minimum Tax) Act 2024, and to make a related amendment to the Goods and Services Tax Act 1993.\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Second Minister for Defence (Mr Jeffery Siow) on behalf of the Second Minister for Finance; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Corporate and Accounting Laws (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority Act 2004 and certain Acts administered by the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority, and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other Acts\". (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Second Minister for Defence (Mr Jeffrey Siow), on behalf of the Second Minister for Finance, read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulation of Imports and Exports (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Regulation of Imports and Exports Act 1995\". (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State (Ms Gan Siow Huang), on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry, read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the various Acts to provide for the punishment of caning for certain offences relating to scams, to create certain new offences, to increase the penalties for certain offences, to remove caning or mandatory caning for certain offences, to prescribe Court procedures for certain young persons who commit offences, and to provide for other criminal law matters and related matters\". (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State (Ms Sim Ann), on behalf of the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs, read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Workplace Fairness (Dispute Resolution) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Workplace Fairness Act 2025 to provide for mediation of workplace fairness disputes and to provide for civil actions for a statutory tort of discrimination, and to make consequential and related amendments to the Employment Claims Act 2016, the Industrial Relations Act 1960 and the Retirement and Re-employment Act 1993\". (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State (Mr Dinesh Vasu Dash), on behalf of the Minister for Manpower, read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament and to be printed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Order. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the day.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Transport Sector (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Mr Murali Pillai): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Acting Minister for Transport, I move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The Transport Sector (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2025 seeks to make various amendments to land and sea transport-related legislation, and a related amendment to the Public Utilities Act 2001.
The Bill covers five key areas. First, the Bill reinforces our efforts to make our public transport system more secure and more comfortable for all. As announced at the Ministry of Transport's (MOT's) Committee of Supply debate this year, we intend to regulate the conduct of commuters to prevent inconsiderate behaviour on public buses and bus interchanges. Through the proposed amendments, we will align the regulatory framework against inconsiderate behaviour across trains and buses.
Examples of such behaviour include, littering and consumption of food and drinks; or causing a nuisance or annoyance to other passengers, such as by playing loud music or videos on mobile phones. Those who contravene the regulations will face penalties commensurate with how the proscribed conduct impacts on other bus commuters, with higher penalties for repeat offenders.
To enable the intent, clause 2(a), (f) and (i) of the Bill amends the Bus Services Industry Act to provide for regulation-making powers to regulate the conduct of bus passengers and members of the public, which includes prohibiting disruptive and nuisance-causing behaviour onboard buses and at bus interchanges. The Regulations, which will be made later, will take reference from existing regulations under the Rapid Transit Systems Act, which prohibits certain behaviour within the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) network.
Clause 2(i) also includes a new Part 7A that provides for the screening of bus passengers and entrants to bus interchanges, and prohibits the carriage of dangerous items onto buses and in bus interchanges. These provisions are currently found in the Road Traffic Act 1961 and are now being consolidated in the Bus Services Industry Act 2015. Hence, this is not a new requirement at law. It is also aligned with the same requirements under the Rapid Transit Systems Act which deals with the MRT system, as provided for in section 23A of the Rapid Transit Systems Act and Regulation 9 of the Rapid Transit Systems Regulations.
In addition, sections 42AC and 42AD of the new Part 7A also provides that it will be an offence for someone to wilfully do anything or omit to do anything in relation to a bus, bus depot or bus interchange thereby endangering the safety of anyone on buses or within bus depot or bus interchange, or cause damage to anything that is part of any bus, bus depot or bus interchange. These offences will be aligned with existing offences provided for in sections 25 and 26 of the Rapid Transit Systems Act in relation to railway and railway premises. Once this Bill is passed, we will be able to set out the prohibited behaviours in the regulations and take enforcement against those who do not comply.
With these changes, authorised officers, such as Land Transport Authority (LTA) enforcement officers and public transport staff like ticket inspectors and interchange staff who are empowered by the LTA to carry out enforcement, will be able to better protect members of public at bus depots, interchanges and public buses.
Second, clause 4 amends section 32 of the Public Transport Council Act to allow the Public Transport Council (PTC) to grant an application by bus operators to withdraw monies from the Fuel Equalisation Fund that they originally contributed. The withdrawals can be granted for reasons unassociated with the original purpose of the Fund.
The Fund was set up in 1992 to mitigate the effects of transient increases in fuel or electricity prices. Operators contributed to their own Fund accounts when energy prices fell below a reference price and could apply to PTC to withdraw funds when energy prices were higher. With the implementation of the Bus Contracting Model in 2016, the impact of any increases in the fuel price and electricity tariff on bus operators is already mitigated, as the Government pays service fees to the bus operators which are indexed to the corresponding energy prices. Therefore, this amendment seeks to allow bus operators to withdraw monies that they had contributed to the Fund over the years before contributions were suspended.
Third, clause 4 also raises the maximum composition sum under the PTC Act from $500 to $10,000, or half the amount of the maximum fine that is prescribed for the offence, whichever is lower. This will allow PTC to increase the deterrence effect of composition sums imposed against point-to-point transport (P2P) operators for breaches under the PTC Act.
For example, this could cover instances where a ride-hail platform operator charges incorrect fares arising from system errors. At present, the maximum composition sum of $500 under the Act is not commensurate with the severity of the offence, as operators are otherwise liable on conviction to a fine of up to $100,000. Therefore, this offence is not currently prescribed to be compoundable. With these amendments, we will be able to prescribe this offence as a compoundable offence and to offer composition of up to $10,000 per offence in less egregious cases.
Fourth, clause 6(f) amends the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore Act 1996 to empower the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) to demarcate deposit sites for the dumping of objects and materials, such as dredged and reclamation materials. Clause 6(e) allows MPA to prescribe fees, with the approval of the Minister for Transport, for the use of these deposit sites. These fees recover MPA’s costs in relation to the deposit sites, including developing, managing, monitoring and maintaining deposit sites, monitoring the deposit of materials at the deposit sites, and investigating the impact of the deposits on the surrounding seabed and marine environment. These matters are essential to ensure safe navigation and safeguarding of the environment.
The fees were originally introduced by the then-Port of Singapore Authority (PSA) and subsequently continued by MPA when it established in 1996. They were not formally prescribed in legislation as the then-PSA and MPA had regarded them as charges for private contractual services. Following the Auditor-General’s Office’s FY2024/2025 report, MPA has been advised that the fees must be prescribed in legislation. This amendment will therefore provide legislative basis for MPA to continue collecting such fees.
As MPA has already incurred significant costs in maintaining the deposit sites and managing dumping activities since 1996, and has been collecting fees in connection with the dumping activities, clause 7 will also validate the past collection of such fees up to the commencement of the new provisions.
Fifth, clauses 3, 6, 8, 9 and 10 introduce several operational and housekeeping amendments to the Multimodal Transport Act 2021, the MPA Act 1996, the MPA (Amendment) Act 2017, Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and a related amendment to the Public Utilities Act 2001. These include provisions to simplify processes and better manage MPA’s operations in this digital age to achieve greater efficiency, provisions to renumber section numbers of provisions enacted in a 2017 Act, as well as amendments to ensure that terminology used in the Multimodal Transport Act 2021 is consistent with our international obligations.
Sir, some of the amendments I am moving today are the legal equivalent of housekeeping – such as aligning the requirements of law across different transportation modes. But the crux of the Bill is to strengthen the foundation of the public transport system itself. A shared vehicle, whether a train or a bus, in a dense, fast-paced and highly networked city, is only safe if we guard against the worst of our base instincts, whether against those who wish us harm, those whose behaviour are boorishly unreasonable in a public space or even those who do not comply with our collective understanding of what it means to respect the rights and space of others in close proximity. This Bill sets out to all parties the expectations of specific forms of compliance when travelling on public transport, deters anti-social and harmful behaviours and ensures a safer and more salubrious experience for all. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
Mr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast-Jurong West): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would first like to declare my interest as the CEO of Strides Premier, a subsidiary of SMRT.
In 2012, I stood in this House to speak up for our Bus Captains, to raise a concern close to my heart. At that time, we had a glaring inconsistency: if a passenger brought a dangerous item on board a bus, the Bus Captain, not the passenger, faced a penalty. Yet, for the same offence on our trains, the passenger was held accountable. This was not just a policy gap. It was a profound injustice for the hardworking men and women at the wheel. I was relieved and thankful when the Ministry moved decisively to rectify this anomaly with the advent of the Bus Contracting Model. Now, with section 42AB of the Bus Services Industry (Amendment) Bill, it is clearly the responsibility of the bus passenger not to bring dangerous items on board the bus.
The Bus Contracting Model was a watershed moment because it forced a fundamental shift in perspective. With the Bus Contracting Model, LTA took direct ownership of bus service levels and the results have been transformative. Service improved significantly. Crucially, the first tender set a new and strong benchmark focused on quality and service, not just the lowest cost.
However, a concerning trend has since emerged. From 2015 to 2024, almost all the bus packages have been awarded based on the lowest or second-lowest price. And the service fee per kilometre has also been a decreasing trend over the last decade. While this has driven apparent cost efficiency, even as Bus Captains' starting pay rightly rose from just over $2,000 a month in 2013 to about $4,000 a month today, we must ask: how far can we push this?
There is a limit to efficiency. Internationally, in the United Kingdom (UK) and Australia, similar systems have shown a tipping point exists. It seems that we may also have reached our tipping point. The recent Tampines bus package was awarded not to the lowest bidder, but to an operator with the highest bid, significantly higher than its competitors. While we are not privy to the award considerations, it would be worthwhile that we review the trajectory of the Bus Contracting Model and send a clear signal to the industry insofar on how the various operators should gear themselves up to service and support Singapore’s bus transport needs.
Next, I would like to address the issue that weighs heavily on the minds of many Singaporeans: the high Certificate of Entitlement (COE) prices. The COE is the big elephant in the room of our transport sector. With Category A prices recently hitting record highs, the COE revenue for the Ministry in 2025 is projected to dwarf the $4.7 billion collected in 2024. To put this in perspective, the entire operating expenditure of MOT was only $2.5 billion in 2024, as compared to the COE revenue of $4.7 billion in the same year.
Currently, all this substantial revenue flows into the Government’s consolidated fund. For the Singaporean who dreams of owning a car but is priced out by these sky-high COEs, this creates a painful disconnect. They see a system that generates immense revenue from a good they cannot afford, with no direct benefit to their daily commute.
To bridge this gap and restore a sense of fairness, I propose the Government consider establishing a dedicated COE-PT (Public Transport) Fund. This fund could earmark a percentage of COE revenue specifically to enhance our public transport ecosystem, over and above the existing MOT operating budget. In this way, for those who would not be able to afford a private car, they will see a continuous improvement to the public transport system, one which will continually be safe and reliable, and that they can fully rely on for their daily commute needs.
This COE-PT Fund could be used to firstly, directly offset a portion of the annual public transport fare increases decided by the PTC, easing the financial burden on every commuter. A portion of the fund could also be used for the much-needed asset renewals across the public transport ecosystem, addressing Life Cycle Management needs, especially our train systems. This will keep our systems functioning safely and reliably, well into the future.
Secondly, the fund can also be used to accelerate the building of covered linkways, ensuring a more comfortable and sheltered journey from our Housing and Development Board flats to MRT stations and bus stops. Thirdly, the fund can also bolster for low-income families through enhanced Public Transport Voucher schemes. Today, for the household to qualify for Public Transport Vouchers, the monthly household income per person cannot be more than $1,800. With the COE-PT Fund, we can have more resources to allow households with orange Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) cards, that is, households with monthly income per person of not more than $2,300 to also qualify for the Public Transport Voucher. With the COE-PT Fund, even those who cannot own a car would see a tangible, direct benefit from the COE system. It would partly take the sting out of the high COE prices and demonstrate that the system is designed to support all Singaporeans.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I have spoken candidly today out of a deep care for our public transport system and for the people it serves. My observations are meant to be constructive. Therefore, with the hope that these points will be given serious consideration, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, while I support the broader objectives of this Bill, particularly the administrative amendments that seek to streamline our land and sea transport regulations for greater efficiency, I have a number of questions regarding the proposed amendments to the Bus Services Industry Act concerning security screening and searches.
We have already travelled this road with the rail network. The legal provisions for mandatory screening, including x-ray scans and free searches, were variously introduced under the Rapid Transit Systems Act and implemented in phases in 2018 and 2021. I have no issue with the principle of transport security, but I have some questions regarding the proposed expansion to the bus network and ensuring that we learn from the roll-out on the MRT.
One, justification for expansion. What did we learn from the Rapid Transit Systems Act roll-out? The existing security paradigm has already seen the implementation of enhanced security MRT stations, many of which are physically integrated with bus interchanges. I would like to ask the Minister, what are the key operational or threat-based lessons drawn from the implementation of mandatory screening and free searches on the MRT/LRT network that necessitate this extension to the bus network? How often were the searches carried out and what was the level of non-compliance on the MRT?
Can the Minister clarify the specific heightened threat assessment, if any, that necessitates extending powers of free searches and mandatory screening to our bus interchanges and onboard public buses at this time? Can the Minister also provide a detailed explanation of the specific and unique threat profile to the bus network? Finally, given that buses and bus interchanges are inherently more porous than enclosed rail systems, how effective will mandatory screening be and how can we avoid creating unnecessary tension, especially given passenger loads during peak times.
Two, operational challenges and effect on seamlessness and commuter flow. The LTA has previously stated that the time taken for random screening on the MRT is kept to a minimum, often under 30 seconds. However, the operational environment of a bus interchange and a public bus is vastly different from a fare-controlled MRT station. Touching on issues of operational impact and public convenience, how will the LTA and the bus operators ensure these checks, whether on a moving bus or at a busy bus interchange, do not cause disproportionate delays to commuter journeys, which rely on rapid boarding and alighting. Specifically for bus interchanges that are co-located with MRT stations, like Jurong East, Woodlands or Ang Mo Kio, where commuters may have already been screened upon entering MRT. What steps will be taken to prevent the duplication of checks and thus, minimise commuter inconvenience? What is the projected manpower requirement to staff for these new screening points at bus interchanges and will this draw resources away from other crucial public transport operations?
Three, safeguards and training, applying the approved person experience. Like the Rapid Transit Systems Act, extending the proposed powers to approved persons under the Bus Services Industry Act similarly necessitates a high level of public confidence and scrutiny. On accountability and safeguards, the implementation of free searches on the rail network was backed by the 2021 legislative amendments. Could the Minister elaborate on the specific post-2021 training enhancements and refresher courses introduced for approved persons under the Rapid Transit Systems Act, and how will these proven standards be directly adopted or even enhanced for the new cohort of bus-related approved persons? Can the Minister explain for the benefit of the public, what are the specific protocols that will govern a free search on board a public bus or at a bus interchange? Are there any protocols to ensure both commuter privacy and officer safety?
Mr Speaker, Singaporeans understand the need for security, just as we also value clarity and efficiency. There is the opportunity to apply the lessons learnt from the Rapid Transit Systems Act introduction to make the Bus Services Industry Act amendments as seamless and publicly acceptable as possible. This expansion must be a justified necessity beyond mere legislative symmetry. I look forward to the Minister's clarification on the matters of necessity, operational efficiency and critical safeguards.
Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the concerns I have raised, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome the proposed amendments to the Bill. In particular, I would like to express my support for the alignment of enforcement powers against delinquent passenger behaviour for buses and trains, which I will focus my speech on.
Buses are an integral part of our public transport system, complementing our MRT. To encourage more people to use our buses and help reduce the demand for private vehicles, the conduct of fellow passengers play a very important role. Mutual respect and considerate behaviour improve the travelling experience on our buses and help ensure safe, reliable and enjoyable journeys.
Most passengers are mindful and cooperative, but we need to guard against potentially dangerous and disruptive behaviours on our public transport systems. Empowering our transportation teams, security and police officers through legislation is a fundamental step and will provide the necessary support for enforcement.
In addition to legislative backing, transport officers should also be offered robust training on how to enforce the law fairly and sensitively. I would like to call for special attention to be given to how our officers will be trained to handle vulnerable commuters, such as the elderly, persons with disabilities or those with mental health challenges.
There are also some important differences that may make addressing delinquent passengers a greater challenge on buses than on MRT trains. For example, all MRT trains will stop at MRT stations that are staffed by transport officers on duty, and have CCTVs and other safety features in place. However, for buses, this is not available except at the bus interchanges and bus drivers have to focus on driving the bus safely, navigating traffic conditions and looking after the safety of all passengers on board. We have also had cases where the bus driver's own personal safety was threatened by violence. Therefore, while bus drivers are often in the first line when it comes to delinquent behaviours on buses, we must remember not to add on to the stresses of their jobs.
With enforcement powers now available, I hope that the Ministry will continue to prioritise the safety of our bus drivers as well, as this is being rolled out. Would we also be expecting more enforcement officers being deployed along bus routes as a result, or if bus drivers will be able to call for assistance from quick response teams if required? Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] With enforcement powers are now available, I hope that the Ministry will continue to prioritise the safety of our bus drivers as this policy is being rolled out. We hope more enforcement officers will be deployed along bus routes so that our bus drivers will be able to call for assistance from quick response teams if required.
(In English): In addition to enforcement powers and penalties, I also believe that continued public education will help to serve as a reminder to all to exercise considerate and gracious behaviours on public transport. I hope that the Ministry will consider putting up such reminders on social media, radio stations, television, on buses and at interchanges to reinforce such messaging. I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare my current appointment as the Executive Secretary of the National Transport Workers' Union.
For decades, our transport workers have done far more than simply get us from point A to point B. With quiet dedication and pride, they have stepped forward time and again to keep Singapore moving, not just in routine times, peace times, but in moments that truly mattered. They are the first to welcome our visitors during large-scale concerts and events. They are also the ones who hold out a steady hand to help a senior on board the bus. And they are the ones who ensure millions reach their destinations safely, every single day.
During the pandemic, when the nation was tested, they stood firm, calmly and consistently ensuring public compliance with mask-wearing. More recently, they once again stepped up to support the nationwide crackdown on e-vapes. Every time, they answered the call with professionalism, resilience and heart.
I note that passenger screening provisions have long existed under the Road Traffic Act. The Bill rightly consolidates these under the Bus Services Industry Act 2015, bringing greater clarity and strengthening our public safety. But, Mr Speaker, as we enhance security, we must also remember what our transport workers are and what they are not. Their primary duty is and must remain, to operate our public transport system safely, reliably and efficiently.
If additional responsibilities, such as passenger screening are needed, these should ideally be undertaken by personnel who are trained and equipped for security enforcement. And where our public transport workers are expected to support these efforts, we must set them up for success. This means clear, simple and practical operating procedures, and ensuring that these new duties do not compromise their core responsibilities.
We have seen what clarity can achieve. When the vaping crackdown began, many workers from our unions, we heard, were understandably anxious about being tasked to seize e-vapes. These concerns were addressed only after clear rules of engagement were laid out and their roles alongside the Health Sciences Authority were properly explained. Once they had that clarity, they adapted quickly and effectively. Their professionalism helped lead to around 60 offenders being caught around the public transport network using vapes.
Therein is the powerful reminder that we are looking at. When we support our workers, our workers will rise to the occasion. That is why I urge the Government to ensure they continue to receive proper training, clear protocols, sufficient equipment and manpower support. Not just only for this initiative, but for all future national assignments that our public transport workers will see coming their way.
Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill introduces penalties against those who endanger the safety of individuals on buses and at interchanges. I seek clarification on whether this protection also covers cases of abuse or harassment against these public transport workers themselves. Because abuse, whether physical or verbal, endangers not only just their well-being, but the safety of everyone else who relies on our public transport workers.
Every single day, our transport workers serve around 7.5 million commuter journeys. Their constant engagement with the public means they face a higher risk of abuse. Most commuters are, of course, gracious and respectful. But when incidents happen, they can be devastating. I recently heard of a Bus Captain who was kicked in the face after asking a commuter to lower the volume on his phone. He required stitches near his eye. Thankfully, the injuries were not permanent. But then again, they could have very easily been so. And we must not forget the early months of the pandemic, when our Bus Captains bore the frustration of some commuters while enforcing mask requirements. But I must say, they stood their ground with calm professionalism. Preventing abuse requires a comprehensive approach, but deterrence through legislation is an important part of that strategy.
Today, the Penal Code and the Protection from Harassment Act provide recourse. But the penalties under the Bill – up to $10,000 in fines and/or imprisonment of up to five years – send an even clearer message. If the clause does not currently cover abuse directed at transport workers, it is perhaps timely to strengthen these protections. After all, no one should have to fear for their safety while doing their jobs. Our Bus Captains, rail staff and all who serve on the frontlines deserve not only respect, but also protection. Tougher penalties are not just about punishment. They are about recognising their dignity and standing firmly behind them.
Mr Speaker, a world-class transport system is not built by buses or trains alone. It is built by people: more than 20,000 men and women who keep Singapore moving, every single day. Their work is often unseen. But it is indispensable. They adapt to new responsibilities at speed. They shoulder national duties without hesitation. They do this with quiet pride, and with a deep commitment to serving others.
So, let us match their dedication with our support. Let us give them the training, protection and recognition they deserve and let us make it clear through both words and action that Singapore stands firmly behind those who keep us moving. And with this, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker Sir, I thank hon Members for their support of the Bill, as well as their comments and suggestions.
Our transport agencies operate within a dynamic context where operational realities evolve quickly. Hon Member Ms Yeo just mentioned that. I will give some examples of it. From time to time, certain lacunae in legislative provisions may also be identified. Periodic updates are necessary to keep pace with these changes and update the legislation so that our agencies can continue to perform their functions effectively and accountably.
The amendments in the Bill serve as an important purpose to strengthen enforcement levers, provide legal basis for crucial statutory functions, ensure clarity for our stakeholders and streamline operational processes across our land and sea transport sectors.
Sir, let me begin by addressing our public transport system. Both hon Members Ms Yeo and Ms Pereira spoke about how we should provide adequate support for our public transport workers. Hon Member Mr Dennis Tan also spoke about sufficient training so that authorised officers can carry out their duties to keep commuters safe. I thank them for their concern for the safety and well-being of our public transport workers. This is something that MOT and LTA will pay special attention to.
We would like to assure hon Members that under the amended Bus Services Industry Act, authorised officers will be provided with the necessary training to carry out their duties professionally and with sensitivity towards more vulnerable groups.
To Ms Yeo’s question about engaging more manpower, we augment the presence of public transport staff by deploying Transit Security Officers at both MRT stations and bus interchanges to conduct patrols, respond to security incidents and conduct security screenings. This will continue.
I also thank Mr Dennis Tan for his queries on how LTA has incorporated lessons from security operations already conducted under the Rapid Transit Systems Act and how we will minimise the impact on bus commuters. Powers to conduct security screenings at our public transport nodes, including at bus premises is not new. As I mentioned in my speech, these powers already exist in the Road Traffic Act 1961. What we are doing here is to consolidate it under the proposed amendments. Our Transit Security Officers already conduct random screening to keep out threats from our public transport network. These screenings are stepped up depending on prevailing threat levels. Such screening remains a necessary deterrence. As noted in the latest Singapore Terrorism Threat Assessment Report released in July this year, our public transport nodes, including bus interchanges remain attractive targets for malicious actors because of high foot traffic.
Based on the experience of LTA and public transport operators, commuters are generally understanding and cooperative. Each search takes less than one minute. Only Police and Senior Approved Persons are allowed to conduct frisk searches and it will be only done on a need-to-basis. As far as staffing is concerned, a point that the hon Member Mr Dennis Tan raised, no additional manpower is required. As I mentioned earlier, the amendment here serves to consolidate the powers from the Road Traffic Act to the Bus Services Industry Act.
But as Ms Pereira pointed out, the safety risks and enforcement in bus settings will differ from that of the trains. Our Bus Captains are one-man operations – they have to focus on driving buses, helping those who need assistance and keeping passengers safe. When they spot behaviour that is disruptive or causing nuisance to other passengers, or if passengers report such behaviour to them, they will stop their buses to report to the Operation Control Centre, where there are trained personnel to advise them on the next course of action. If the behaviour is dangerous, they will have the authority to stop the bus service for the safety of the passengers. The Police will be activated for cases where passengers get violent, or if there are other safety or security concerns.
Ms Yeo asked about whether section 42AC of the new Part 7A, which provides that it will be an offence to endanger the safety of anyone travelling on a bus or within a bus interchange will cover our public transport workers. While this specific offence only covers acts involving bus assets or infrastructure that endanger safety, we intend to issue new regulations that will allow LTA enforcement officers to take stern action against passengers who abuse our public transport workers under the amended Bus Services Industry Act. For more egregious cases, bus passengers who abuse our public transport workers can also be prosecuted under the Penal Code, as per today.
Indeed, a major reason for the amendments to the Bus Services Industry Act is to ensure that our buses continue to offer passengers and our workers a more pleasant and secure environment.
In this same vein, I thank Mr Ang Wei Neng for sharing his views on the Bus Contracting Model. We agree with the hon Member that we should not be chasing ever lower prices. That is not our intent. LTA evaluates bus tenders based on a two-envelope process, where quality evaluation is conducted before looking at price submissions. The goal is not to have the cheapest bid, but the best value-for-money proposal.
Beyond price and quality factors at each individual tender, LTA also works closely with the National Transport Workers’ Union and transport operators to improve the attractiveness and sustainability of the sector. I was personally involved in working with Ms Yeo and her predecessor Mr Melvin Yong and tripartite partners to improve safety in our public bus sector earlier this year. We are also working with union to improve Bus Captains' welfare, including how we can ensure the salaries of Bus Captains are kept competitive, so that the job can be more attractive to our local Singaporeans.
Mr Ang Wei Neng also made other suggestions on how we can strengthen the financial sustainability and affordability of the public transport system. Specifically, he asked whether we can directly earmark part of COE revenue for public transport. In general, that is not the approach that we take for Government revenue. Instead, we look at the needs across different sectors to maximise the impact of Government spending. The public transport sector is a key area for Government investment and we already provide substantial operating subsidies of $2 billion for public transport every year. This equates to more than $1 in subsidies for every journey taken. MOT will consider his suggestion on tying public transport voucher eligibility to CHAS.
Mr Speaker, ensuring a safer, more secure and more comfortable public transport network is a collective responsibility. The intention of strengthening enforcement is not to just catch more egregious cases, but to stop them from happening in the first place. As Ms Pereira has pointed out, this means continuing our public education efforts to remind the public to be considerate and gracious when taking public transport.
Likewise, safeguarding sea resources and the marine environment serves a collective good. We aim to empower MPA to do so through this Bill. Taken together, the amendments in this Bill are part of our broader effort to maintain a well-governed, forward looking and trusted transport ecosystem – one that continues to support Singapore’s connectivity, competitiveness and environmental sustainability. I thank hon Members for supporting this Bill to strengthen the resilience of our transport sectors. Sir, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications for the Senior Minister of State? No.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Murali Pillai]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: It has been some time since we sat. Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.35 pm. Order. Order.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.14 pm until 4.35 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.35 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Sun Xueling.
The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Acting Minister for Transport): Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Acting Minister for Transport, I move, “That the Bill be now read a Second time”.
Aviation is a critical sector for Singapore. It connects us to the world and anchors our status as a global hub. Prime Minister Lawrence Wong just broke ground on Terminal 5, which will increase Changi’s capacity by about 50 million passengers a year.
As we continue to grow, we want to do so sustainably, so that future generations of Singaporeans can also experience the joy of air travel and Singapore can continue to serve as a premier air hub for the region and the world. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has set a long-term aspirational goal of net zero carbon emissions for international aviation by 2050. As a member of the international civil aviation community and an ICAO Council Member, we are committed to working towards that goal. We will do so in a practical manner, advancing both sustainability and competitiveness, not one at the expense of the other.
The Singapore Sustainable Air Hub Blueprint was launched last year and sets out Singapore’s approach. Within this, the implementation of sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) is a critical pathway for us to realise our aviation decarbonisation goals. This Bill provides the legislative framework to enable its adoption in Singapore.
SAF is the most practical way to decarbonise aviation today. It is a drop-in fuel that can be blended with jet fuel, for use with existing aircraft and refuelling infrastructure, without the need for costly modifications. SAF is expected to contribute around 65% of the carbon emission reduction needed by aviation to achieve net zero by 2050. Recognising the importance of SAF to aviation decarbonisation, ICAO and its member states have agreed to a collective global aspirational vision to reduce international aviation emissions by five percent by 2030 through the use of SAF and other cleaner energies.
However, there are challenges in the adoption of SAF. Firstly, global supply remains limited, with production capacity only gradually scaling up. Number two, on the demand side, uptake is uneven and often concentrated in regions with strong mandates or subsidies. Number three, the sector is still nascent, and the costs remain high and volatile. Currently, SAF costs about three to four times more than conventional jet fuel.
Countries around the world have taken different approaches. Some jurisdictions adopt mandates. They require fuel suppliers to blend SAF into conventional jet fuel. The European Union's (EU’s) ReFuelEU Aviation Regulation, for instance, requires a two percent SAF blend by 2025, rising progressively to 70% by 2050. The United Kingdom's (UK’s) SAF mandate targets a 10% blend by 2030. They are exploring a revenue certainty mechanism to encourage investment in SAF production. This includes a guaranteed minimum level of revenue for SAF producers, even when market prices fluctuate.
Other jurisdictions use incentives. In the United States (US), federal incentives as well as state-level programmes help to lower the cost of SAF and encourage domestic production.
We have studied these approaches for Singapore carefully. Both have their merits, but they also come with trade-offs. Due to price volatility, mandates create significant cost uncertainty for airlines and passengers. In adopting SAF, we want to provide cost certainty to airlines and passengers and ensure that the cost is manageable. Subsidies, on the other hand, require large and recurring fiscal commitments, which are not fiscally sustainable for Singapore. Singapore has therefore chosen a pragmatic and balanced approach, calibrated to our circumstances. We do this in three ways: through a SAF target, fixed cost envelope model and centralised procurement approach.
To anchor supply resilience, Singapore has set a 1% SAF uplift target by 2026, with the goal to raise this to 3% to 5% by 2030, subject to global developments and the wider availability of SAF. We have consulted the industry and assessed that starting with a 1% target is manageable. It will not increase air ticket prices significantly.
On the other hand, the 1% target will send a firm demand signal to the market to spur production and industry development in Singapore. It allows us to do our part to support aviation decarbonisation, while laying the groundwork for broader adoption in the future.
At the same time, cost certainty is critical. SAF is still a nascent product that is subject to high price volatility. Unlike fossil jet fuel, airlines cannot hedge the price of SAF. Simply mandating the use of SAF would impose unpredictable and unsustainable costs on airlines and passengers as SAF prices may vary significantly.
This is why Singapore will adopt a fixed cost envelope model, funded through a SAF levy. Under this model, the total amount spent on SAF each year will be pre-determined based on our SAF target and the projected SAF premium. The amount needed will be collected upfront via the SAF levy. Importantly, the levy quantum for that year will not change even if the actual SAF premium differs from our projection. Instead, SAF uplift volumes will be adjusted accordingly. This ensures cost certainty for airlines, passengers and shippers. Airlines can plan with confidence, and passengers and shippers can expect predictable and stable charges, instead of facing sharp and unpredictable fluctuations.
We will also aggregate SAF demand across airlines and centrally procure SAF using the SAF levy collected. This allows us to secure better commercial terms with fuel suppliers and ensures that the levy proceeds are used in an accountable and effective manner.
Our approach balances ambition with pragmatism. It helps to encourage SAF production through clear demand signals, while ensuring that costs remain contained, predictable and fairly shared. These in turn allow us to meet our environmental responsibilities while safeguarding the competitiveness of our air hub.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now go into the key features of the Bill, which proposes to make amendments to the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore Act 2009. Clause 9 of the Bill provides for the SAF levy to be payable in respect of passengers, cargoes and flights departing from an airport in Singapore to land in a place outside Singapore. The airports in Singapore that require the payment of SAF levy will be as specified in an Order made by the Minister for Transport.
Clause 9 also provides that the SAF levy is payable to the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS). The amount or rate will be prescribed in the Order and must be paid into the SAF Fund. The Order may also provide for other details, such as different amounts or rates that may be imposed in respect of different classes of passengers, cargoes, airports or aircraft.
Clause 3 of the Bill amends section 7(1) to create a new function for CAAS. CAAS may procure, manage, account for and allocate SAF and SAF environmental attributes, or establish and appoint a company to carry out these functions. SAF environmental attributes (SAF EAs) represent the difference in carbon dioxide emissions between the same quantities of SAF and conventional aviation fuel throughout their respective life cycles. Under the Bill, the SAF and SAF EAs may be allocated to persons who pay SAF levies or any other person as prescribed in an Order.
Clause 5 of the Bill inserts new sections 25C and 25D. The new section 25C establishes the SAF Fund, which comprises, among other moneys, all the SAF levies collected, and all interests and penalties imposed in relation to the SAF levies. The new section 25D sets out an exhaustive list of the purposes of the SAF Fund, which includes procuring SAF and SAF EAs and paying for the costs of procuring, managing and allocating SAF and SAF EAs.
Clauses 6, 7 and 8 make miscellaneous amendments to sections 86, 87 and 87A to align the provisions on the aviation levy and airport development levy with the new section 87B for consistency.
This Bill is an important enabler of Singapore's aviation decarbonisation journey. It reflects Singapore’s commitment to international decarbonisation goals and our determination to pursue a pragmatic and balanced approach that supports the competitiveness of our Singapore air hub. We will continue to work closely with the aviation industry and stakeholders to ensure the smooth implementation of this Bill. Sir, I seek to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would first like to declare that I am the owner and operator of a food waste valorisation enterprise, which produces a side stream product that can be used as a feedstock for biofuels.
The intent behind these amendments to decarbonise aviation and align Singapore with the global net-zero targets is a step in the right direction.
The global aviation sector is at a crossroads. While SAF offers a promising pathway to decarbonisation, it is still in its infancy in terms of supply, cost and scalability. The question before us is how we get there, and at what pace and price.
To this end, I would like to raise a few points for clarification.
First, on the viability of SAF, both economically and technologically. Second, on upstream capacity and whether global supply can meet our ambitions. Third, on feedstock availability and type, given regional constraints. Fourth, the impact of the levy on investors and airlines. And finally, on regional opportunities – how this transition could create green jobs and help Singapore leapfrog as a regional hub for sustainable aviation.
SAF is the aviation industry's best near-term pathway to decarbonisation. Yet, SAF today remains three to five times more expensive than conventional jet fuel. According to the International Air Transport Association (IATA), global production accounted for only 0.2% of jet fuel consumption in 2023.
This raises the question of just how economically and technologically viable SAF is. Without sufficient scale, a SAF levy risks becoming a cost burden on airlines and passengers rather than a market signal strong enough to catalyse real change.
In Norway and the EU, SAF blending mandates have been introduced. In Norway, 0.5% blending requirement, implemented in 2020, did increase SAF uptake, but at significant cost to carriers, which in turn led to ticket price increases and logistical complexities in supply.
Similarly, the EU's RefuelEU Aviation regulation, passed this year, mandated a progressive SAF blend rising to 70% by 2050. However, the European Commission itself acknowledges that high production costs remain the biggest constraint.
The energy transition toward carbon neutrality demands a transformation across the entire aviation supply chain, from producers to off-takers, from regulators to the flying public. This is not a change that one sector can shoulder alone. It requires a shared understanding of how costs and upstream investments are borne, how responsibilities are shared and how each phase of implementation unfolds.
For a SAF levy to truly succeed, it must inspire confidence, de-risk investment and drive down costs over time.
Globally, even major energy players, such as Shell and BP, have slowed or paused SAF investment. Just this year, Shell suspended plans for its 820,000-tonne-per-year SAF facility in Rotterdam, citing rising costs and uncertain margins. To put things in perspective, the world's total SAF production capacity today stands at around 600 million litres a year, less than what airlines consume in a single day. To meet the ICAO target of 5% SAF by 2030, the global production output would need to increase 50-fold in just five years.
Sir, even the largest integrated energy companies remain cautious. Without strong market guarantees or co-investment frameworks, smaller producers will not invest in new refineries or feedstock supply chains.
Singapore's SAF levy could be made more effective by pairing it with targeted incentives, such as joint ventures or green finance instruments like transition bonds, to support feedstock aggregation and upstream infrastructure.
Japan's \"ACT FOR SKY\" consortium offers a useful model, where the government united airlines, fuel suppliers and trading houses to co-invest in early-stage SAF projects, aligning public and private risk to achieve scale.
I would like to ask if the Ministry will consider allocating part of the SAF levy revenue towards developing upstream production capacity.
The success of SAF depends very much on the feedstock, which is the raw material used to produce it. Today, most SAF comes from things like used cooking oil, animal fats, or farm waste. But these materials are limited in supply. A McKinsey study found that by 2030, such waste-based sources can meet only about 30% of global demand. The rest will have to come from more advanced fuels made using captured carbon and green hydrogen – technologies that are still expensive and developing.
To build Singapore's position as a sustainable aviation hub, we must look closely at what kinds of feedstock are available in our region. Broadly, there are two types: first-generation feedstock is made from food crops such as corn, sugarcane, or palm oil. Second-generation feedstock is made from waste materials such as used cooking oil or animal fat.
The difference between them is significant. For example, when you take into account the clearing of land to grow palm oil, the total carbon pollution from palm oil-based fuel can actually be higher than regular jet fuel, more than 100 grammes of CO₂ per unit of energy, compared to about 89 grammes for conventional jet fuel.
In contrast, fuels made from used cooking oil or animal fat can reduce emissions by 60% to 70%, because they use recycle existing waste rather than grow new crops. The problem is that these waste materials are limited and already in demand by other industries.
That is why international bodies like ICAO, through its Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) framework, now define which feedstocks truly count as sustainable. Some, like palm oil residues, are still hotly debated because of concerns about deforestation and how carbon is measured. Choosing the wrong mix of feedstocks could hurt both our environmental goals and economic opportunities in the carbon market.
Sir, Singapore should build feedstock differentiation and traceability into its SAF framework from the very start, ensuring accountability to ICAO's sustainability standards.
Alternatively, a more practical approach could be to set uniform emissions targets, adjusted according to each feedstock's carbon intensity, so that producers are rewarded for using cleaner inputs and held accountable for those with higher carbon intensities.
May I ask the Ministry which approach Singapore plans to adopt in aligning our SAF framework with international standards and what are the plans to develop upstream feedstock capacity?
Sir, the SAF levy has been introduced as a flat charge to provide price predictability for end consumers and airlines. The levy takings will be used to purchase SAF at market prices, meaning that the volume of off-take will fluctuate in response to price movements.
This design ensures cost stability for airlines and travellers but not volume stability for producers. For investors developing refineries, feedstock logistics, or synthetic fuel technologies, such uncertainty poses a challenge. Manufacturing operations require a minimum scale to be viable.
The SAF levy rightly internalises environmental costs and encourages greener choices. But does it drive more upstream investments?
Experience abroad offers valuable lessons. In the US, the Inflation Reduction Act introduced SAF tax credits of up to US$1.75 per gallon, narrowing a price gap with conventional jet fuel. That single policy unlocked billions in private investment across 14 states, demonstrating how clear price and volume signals coupled with investment incentives can provide the certainty needed to scale production.
I would like to emphasise my earlier point. Singapore could consider a similar approach, such as a performance-linked rebate or co-investment scheme, where part of the levy revenues is directed into SAF research and development (R&D), production infrastructure, or feedstock aggregation. This would create a more circular levy and crucially, send a strong signal of long-term policy confidence to investors.
Another avenue is to enable voluntary contributions, especially from corporate travellers, to fund SAF adoption. This would expand financing options and engage the public in Changi's sustainability journey.
Ultimately, producers need predictability, in terms of off-take volumes to justify investments. The current levy provides price certainty, but it risks volume volatility. A minimum offtake commitment could help bridge that gap.
May I ask how the Government what are the plans to ensure minimum off-take guarantees for producers, while still maintaining price stability for airlines and travellers?
Despite these challenges, Sir, there are promising opportunities. With strategic design, the SAF levy could put us in the lead as a regional hub for SAF, attracting new green investments, encouraging co-location of upstream production facilities, creating high-value jobs across the feedstock, refining and carbon management value chains.
Given our established petrochemical expertise and proximity to Southeast Asia's agricultural base, Singapore is uniquely positioned to coordinate feedstock-to-fuel supply chains. A collaborative framework with Association for Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) partners could enable joint certification, financing and trade of SAF across borders, much like how Singapore pioneered regional liquefied natural gas (LNG) trading.
Beyond serving as a trading and refining hub, Singapore can also derive direct benefits from co-locating SAF production and carbon management activities. This would generate quality employment in advanced manufacturing, logistics and sustainability services, and anchor Singapore in the upstream value chain, from feedstock aggregation and processing to downstream carbon credit generation through verified emission reductions.
May I ask the Minister how the Ministry plans to grow the broader SAF ecosystem and what new high-value jobs and opportunities for local enterprises it expects to create through this transition?
Sir, to summarise, the success of the SAF levy will depend on how well it drives real investment and innovation across the value chain.
I have raised clarifications on five areas: one, the viability of SAF; two, upstream production capacity; three, feedstock standards; four, investment certainty; and five, regional opportunities. In particular, how the Ministry plans to support upstream development, ensure off-take stability for producers and grow high-value jobs and local enterprise opportunities through this transition.
With clear policies and strong partnerships, Singapore can turn this levy into a catalyst for green aviation leadership. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (Amendment) Bill whilst seemingly technical, is a critical piece of legislation that puts into policy and operationalises Singapore's commitment to tackling carbon emissions from the aviation sector through the increased adoption of SAF.
The adoption of SAF is broadly recognised by the scientific community and the industry as a necessary step in our pathway towards achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 and crucially, in striving to meet the Paris Agreement goals of limiting global warming to below two degrees Celsius.
The production of SAF is still nascent and breakthroughs may come in sparse so Singapore must stay agile to capitalise on them. With our worldclass logistics trade links and existing refinery presence, we are well-placed to lead in the regional SAF industry. We can build flexibility into our SAF regimes so that when new pathways mature, we can scale up quickly.
As a party that supports ambitious climate action in line with scientific consensus, the Workers' Party (WP) supports the intent and broad purpose of this Bill. We believe it is important to tackle carbon emissions from international aviation even if they are not covered under Singapore's national carbon budget.
This is because it is the right thing to do. It is an area where we have a measure of control and it is a move that will benefit our economy and society in the long run by future-proofing our status as an international aviation hub.
Generally, the new provisions in the Bill allow for a more straightforward and policy stable approach to SAF adoption. This is commendable. Nevertheless, I have some clarifications to seek from the Minister of State regarding the mechanics and implications of this legislation. My queries fall broadly into the following categories: one, the rationale and transparency of the proposed SAF fund mechanism; two, issues of process regarding the implementation of the fund; three, the impact of the new levy on travellers and the broader strategy of fair decarbonisation of Singapore's aviation sector and; four, ensuring that we remain ready to scale and capture market share as the technology develops.
One, why the fund mechanism. Mr Deputy Speaker, according to clause 9 of this Bill, airlines are expected to potentially pass down the cost of SAF adoption to travellers. If the costs are ultimately borne by the consumer, may I ask why has the Government chosen the method of establishing a fund for the collection of SAF levies to procure SAF over other methods? I note this is different from the funding mechanism in say, the EU or the UK. Why not allow the cost to be passed through directly and transparently by the airlines? Is the fund primarily intended as a risk-pooling mechanism, or does it serve another strategic purpose?
Secondly, on the issue of transparency, I would like, will the collections, purchases and timing of SAF procurement through the fund be made public and transparent? It is stated that the fund will not form part of the CAAS revenue and will also be used for administrative cost. Given that the fund appears designed to have some slack after SAF purchases, which is prudent, will the public have access to information on how much surplus or slack there is in the fund annually? Furthermore, does the Government have any projections yet on the annual total collections via the levy? This information is vital for public accountability and for assessing the efficiency and scale of this new policy tool.
Two, issues of process for the implementation of the SAF procurement mechanism. I turn to the issues of process regarding the implementation of the procurement mechanism, it is not entirely clear from the Bill who or what will be the procuring entity mentioned in clause 5, which outlines the purposes of the SAF fund.
Currently, there is only one major SAF operator in Singapore. Given that we have ambitions to scale up the sector, how can new players be assured that the procurement process is fair and open to all? I would also like to ask the Minister, what is the timeline for the formal establishment and operationalisation of this procuring entity? In the interim before the entity is formally set up, is the CAAS the designated procuring entity? How is the procuring entity going to be appointed and governed? Will its structure be similar to existing models such as the Singapore Gas Co Ptd Ltd under the Energy Market Authority? Will private sector firms be involved in this procuring entity? Regardless of whether it is a wholly owned, public or mixed entity, will the procuring entity be subject to the standard public agency procurement rules to ensure fair and competitive processing of SAF?
Mr Deputy Speaker, as a small nation, Singapore does not produce enough convertible feedstock to be self-sufficient in SAFs, especially given our status as a regional air hub. However, our neighbours in Malaysia, Indonesia and Australia, produce or are capable of producing large volumes of feedstock. We have healthy trade relationships with many economies in the region and we should consider establishing a cooperative framework that can ensure a steady supply of feedstock into our facilities. Having a clear and fair framework for regional cooperation will also strengthen Singapore's status as a leader in the carbonisation efforts in the region.
Furthermore, not all feedstock are made equal. Some have significant significantly higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions due to inefficient conversion, higher carbon cost at production or polluting by-products. We must ensure that we do not inadvertently become a tool for green washing in our quest to be a leader in the nascent SAF industry. We can perhaps strengthened safeguards by defining categories of feedstock acceptable under this Bill.
Next, the impact on travellers and fair decarbonisation. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am conscious of the potential financial impact this levy will have on travellers, especially those who rely on air travel to visit family or pursue work opportunities. This is set against the context that Singapore already charges fairly high airport fees, for example, due to the Terminal 5 development levy, otherwise known as the Airport Development Levy.
On the issue of financial impact on travellers, I have the following questions.
First on the expected cost. Based on the current market rates for SAF and the projected adoption mandate, can the Government provide any illustration on the additional expected cost for a typical passenger flying of Changi Airport. A clear illustration is helpful to manage public expectations.
Second, I note that the Bill allows for the possibility of prescribing different rates of SAF levy for different classes of passengers or cargoes, airports or aircraft, places of landing or any other differential basis. This seems rather broad. So, I would like to ask as a matter of equity and fairness, will the SAF levy be stratified or differentiated to charge those who pollute more such as private jets, special chartered flights or passengers on different classes of travel on commercial airlines and if so, how it will be done. Is the Bill designed to simply allow airlines the discretion to decide how these new costs are passed down to different classes or passengers at least in terms of cost? A flat rate imposition could disproportionately affect those travelling in economy class. Can the Minister also provide some information on the way SAF levy charges will apply for outbound air cargo?
Next, fair decarbonisation and supply side. Sir, this Bill represents the Government's first ever airport levy specifically intended for decarbonisation purposes, which is a noteworthy step. I would like the Minister to elaborate on the expected impact of this levy and fund on the development of Singapore's domestic SAF industry and its overall supply. I would also like to ask whether the industry is currently constrained primarily by a lack of guaranteed demand from airlines, or is this levy needed more because it will provide the financial support necessary for the industry to overcome the technological and cost challenges of producing SAF?
I note that IATA recently released a study suggesting the main bottleneck is more with technology rather than the availability of feedstocks. We have used cooking oil, being the main commercially available process. In the Government's view, how far is the industry from commercially scaling up other crucial processes such as power to liquid SAF? I asked this because if our ability to make aviation feel more sustainable is still constrained by technological or supply side limitation, we must also think more broadly about reducing emissions through other viable means. This includes reducing per passenger emissions by encouraging airlines to adopt higher passenger density on the aircraft, albeit carefully drawing appropriate balance between basic acceptable comfort and numbers, especially for the economy class.
Expert groups, such as the Global Solidarity Levies Task Force has suggested that this could be achieved by raising fees on classes with lower passenger density, such as business or first class, as well as on private jet passengers. Such a policy structure would align the cost of travel more closely with the environmental impact and promote a fairer distribution of the decarbonisation burden.
Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, an SAF levy is intended to find the use of more expensive SAF. But this increases operating costs for airlines, which are then typically passed on to passengers as higher ticket price. This situation creates a risk of carbon leakage, which is commonly understood as the increase in emissions outside a region imposing a climate policy due to businesses or consumers shifting their activities to areas with less stringent regulations.
In aviation this leakage may happen when airlines or passengers avoid the levy by hard switching. That is to say, they opt for connecting flights to international airports that do not impose the SAF charge, thereby displacing the carbon intensive activity rather than truly reducing global emissions and putting the regulated hub at the competitive disadvantage. Given the goal of net-zero future, how does the Government intend to prevent or significantly reduce such carbon leakage after the introduction of our levy?
Next, scalability and market capture. Singapore is spearheading the development of SAFs in the region with Neste's Tuas facility, the first of its kind globally, marking a significant step forward. The Government has made clear its intent to continue advancing SAF as a key pillar of Singapore's sustainable aviation strategy. However in a nascent and rapidly evolving industry, technological breakthroughs are unpredictable and can often occur in bursts rather than along a steady trajectory.
The CAAS (Amendment) Bill does not prescribe a fixed schedule for increasing the SAF levy on blending ratio. It empowers CAAS to review these from time to time. This raises an important policy question. What should trigger future changes to the levy or SAF target? Should adjustment depend on global supply milestones, declining price differentials or broader regional capacity developments? I know the Senior Minister of State has explained on this.
Nevertheless, let me suggest, to ensure flexibility and market alignment, Singapore could adopt a trigger base framework where each revision is activated only when specific verifiable conditions are met. For example, a new blending target could be triggered when global certified SAF supply reaches a certain threshold or once SAF price premiums fall below a defined multiple of Jet A-1 fuel. Alternatively, escalation could be tied to regional production capacity or carbon intensity benchmarks verified under ICAO's CORSIA framework. Such an approach ensures that taxpayers and airlines can be confident that adjustments are implemented only when the market is ready, keeping Singapore nimble and responsive to dynamic global conditions rather than bound to an arbitrary timeline.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in closing, I will reiterate that the market-based solution of an SAF levy as legislated by this Bill is a good step forward. I am heartened that Singapore is taking tangible first steps in line with the global aviation industry's goals. Of course, this must only be the beginning and we should and must explore further avenues for fair and effective decarbonisation after this. I look forward to the Minister of State's clarifications on the questions I have raised. Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding the questions and concerns I have raised, I support this amendment Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.
Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang West): My Deputy Speaker, I declare my interest as an employee in the aviation sector.
Every passenger departing Singapore through Changi Airport will pay $16.90 for levies, that is $6.10 for Aviation levy and $10.80 for Airport Development Levy to CAAS, on top of the air ticket. With the SAF levy, the total levy per trip will increase to between $19.90 and $32.90, or an increase of between 18% and 95%, depending on the distance of the destination. This is a price which every departing passenger has to pay and while it may be a small amount, it is one in which consumers have no choice in, have no control over, in terms of adapting their behaviours to the change in price and actually, from which they enjoy no benefit, except indirectly.
In my speech, I will request for clarifications on three points: one, why is the cost burden levied solely on passengers; two, will SAF levy rate increase in the future and; three, is the central procurement model necessarily the most cost-effective.
The global aviation sector is responsible for about 3% of global carbon emissions. In 2024, Changi Airport reported 1.207 million tonnes of CO2 emissions, which is about 2% of Singapore’s carbon emission and only 0.13% share of CO2 emissions from global aviation, or only 0.0039% of global CO2 emissions. As Singapore has only one international airport, estimated at 0.0039%, our effective contribution to global carbon emissions is actually very small.
Nevertheless, as a key leader in global aviation and Singapore Changi Airport being a leading regional and international air hub, we must do our part to support global efforts in sustainable aviation and meet ICAO's Net Zero goal by 2050.
In the recent ICAO Assembly, a collective global aspirational vision to reduce CO2 emissions in international aviation by 5% by 2030 was adopted. In fact, several airports and jurisdictions have already implemented mandatory SAF policies. For instance, the European Aviation Security Agency (EASA) has mandated, since January this year, a minimum 2% blend on Aviation Fuel Suppliers in European Union (EU) airports. Their long-term target is to increase to 70% blend by 2050.
At the same time, airlines, such as KLM and Delta Airlines, have pledged a 10% SAF blend by 2030, while industry bodies, such as IATA's Fly Net Zero roadmap, lean on SAF for 65% of all emission cuts by 2050.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is clear from this that the specific behaviours we should target are at the airlines and not the consumer. At the same time, it is the airlines which will benefit from the carbon credits that accrue from the use of these clean fuels.
It is, therefore, the airlines, and not the consumer, who should be the object of taxes. In many countries and jurisdictions, the cost of SAF is indeed directly borne by airlines or by aviation fuel suppliers. In fact, Singapore is the only country to have a SAF levy imposed solely on passengers.
Hence, the first question is, why do passengers and not the airlines pay? Second, why does the Government even need to mandate a SAF levy on passengers, when some airlines have already voluntarily committed to decarbonisation through SAF for their corporate decarbonisation targets?
Some airlines have also signed up on the CORSIA framework under ICAO, to reduce their carbon footprint. If I may draw an analogy, it is akin to restaurants using styrofoam packaging, and the Government wanting them to switch to green packaging. And rather than levying taxes on those restaurants using styrofoams, the Government has decided to tax the diners instead.
Further, this tax is not only on diners at restaurants with styrofoam packaging, but on all diners, even those dining at establishments that are already using green packaging. This is, to say the least, a very odd state of affairs. I hope the Minister can clarify why is Singapore's approach different from all other countries in the world. Was there public engagement with passengers on the imposition of the SAF levy? Also, can the Minister clarify if there is a plan to roll back on the SAF levy if more airlines are voluntarily committing to decarbonisation?
The Singapore Sustainable Air Hub Blueprint has recommended a 1% SAF by 2026, rising to 3% to 5% by 2030. This is a small step in the right direction. In 2024, Changi Airport contributed only 0.13% to global aviation's carbon emissions. With a 3% to 5% SAF blend, what is the effectiveness in reducing the global aviation's carbon emissions?
In order for Singapore to contribute more meaningfully to ICAO's Net Zero by 2050 goal, do we expect a steady increase in the SAF blend requirement above 5% after 2030? If so, will the SAF levy, correspondingly, increase in the future?
Currently, SAF is two to five times more expensive than Jet A-1 fuel. As demand for SAF increases, the cost may also increase, if supply of feedstock continues to be limited. If the revenue from levy collected is insufficient to cope with the SAF price increase, will the SAF levy be expected to increase in the future?
Following the successful expansion of a renewable diesel refinery in Tuas, up to one million tonnes of SAF can now be produced per annum at the Singapore facility. This makes Singapore the largest producer of the renewable jet fuel in the world. The expanded facility is owned and operated by Finnish energy company, Neste.
With Neste being the only SAF producer in Singapore, how does SAFCo then ensure that SAF procured is most cost effective? How will SAFCo bring more producers in to increase competition?
Currently, airlines have their own teams that will procure Jet A-1 fuel. Many airlines hedge forward fuel prices and some, which predict the trend wrongly, may turn airlines into huge losses. How can SAFCo ensure they have the talents who have the expertise, experience and the market network of oil traders, who can trade on behalf of the airlines and seek best value for the SAF levy collected from passengers, which is likely to be in the tune of a few hundred million dollars per annum.
SAF is just one of the many ways to decarbonise the industry. At present, it is the most mature and easy to use as it is a drop-in fuel. However, its scalability is limited by the high price, which is, in turn, caused by limited feedstock. There are ongoing studies and trials on other pathways to reduce carbon emissions by airlines, such as hydrogen powered aircraft, battery operated aircraft for short-haul flights and contrail avoidance flight routes, and so on.
While we get started on SAF operations, we should also keep an open mind on other viable options along the way. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would ask for serious consideration on my first question, on whether passengers ought to be paying the levies. Notwithstanding, I support the Bill's amendment.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Lee Hui Ying.
Ms Lee Hui Ying (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the CAAS Amendment Bill.
In February 2016, ICAO announced the first global CO2 Standards for 13 new aircrafts launched after 2020. More countries than ever, including our neighbours, such as Indonesia, have pledged to incorporate SAFs into their aviation industries. Malaysia has also opened a biofuel processing plant, facilitating potential regional trade in SAFs in the upcoming years.
I am glad that Singapore is joining in on this global movement to achieve net-zero emissions domestically and internationally in aviation emissions by 2050.The aviation industry is responsible for 2.5% of global emissions and SAFs can contribute around 65% reduction in emissions. The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (Amendment) Bill, therefore, aims to aid Singapore towards this endeavour.
On this Bill, I have two questions: first, the risks of the SAF market; and second, the levy impact on consumers while we maintain our competitiveness as an aviation hub.
My first question really touches on the risk of investing in the SAF market, which is a novel market, subject to high uncertainty. The new sections 25C and 25D proposed in the Bill state that the Authority may use the SAF fund to carry out investments. The net income of the fund is calculated by an addition or reduction from the income derived from investments. The Bill also accounts for instances where such investments could lead to losses. A big concern in the SAF industry is in its novelty stage, especially in second generation SAF processes, which are not yet proven to be commercially viable.
Many global players, like the US, UK and the EU, have enacted specific legislations that invests in the development of second generation SAFs as the available biofuels currently made from the hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (HEFA) process, are in limited supply. The success of these projects is uncertain, whereby the costs of failed ventures are largely incurred by investors and in this case, the SAF fund. Therefore, the SAF fund is inherently risky as the SAF industry is still in an early stage and profits may be vulnerable to sudden changes in technological advancements, viability of second generation SAFs and policies of other countries.
I would like to ask the Minister of State what steps will be taken by the Government to ensure the resilience of the SAF fund, while managing the risks and fluctuations in the SAF industry due to technological developments and/or global political uncertainty? In particular, will the SAF fund invest in the second generation SAF industry?
Second, on levy impact on consumers and maintaining competitiveness as an aviation hub. I would like to touch on the costs that would be incurred by consumers as a result of this act. Research has shown that biojet fuel can be two to eight times more expensive than conventional kerosene jet fuel. Singapore is fortunate enough that we can afford to expend more to protect the environment and the levies and funds set out in clause 9 of the Bill today would certainly assist us in affording this transition towards SAFs.
However, air travel in Singapore is already considerably expensive for regular consumers. I would like to ask the Minister of State if the Government has calculated how much of the levy costs are predicted to be shifted onto consumers versus industry stakeholders? What is the expected impact of the levy on passenger fares and also air freight costs? And how does the Government plan to maintain Singapore's competitiveness and perhaps, also harmonise standards as an aviation hub, given that other regional airports may not impose a similar levy?
Mr Deputy Speaker, these questions aside, I support the Bill and hope such sustainable spirit would expand in future to other aviation-adjacent industries.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare that I work in a global investment firm that have investments in aviation companies and sustainable solutions. This is a forward-looking and pragmatic piece of legislation. The Bill does more than establish the SAF fund and levy. It gives us a clear, stable framework to turn our Sustainable Air Hub Blueprint from aspiration into action.
But this Bill is not just about planes or policies. It is about people. It is about families planning their next holiday. It is about the thousands of Singaporeans whose livelihoods depend on our position as a trusted global air hub. So, the question before us is this: how do we fly toward a greener future without losing our altitude as a competitive, connected economy? To that end, I wish to seek clarifications on five key areas: transparency, fairness, competitiveness, accountability and international alignment.
First, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, predictability builds trust. Singaporeans can accept modest green contributions when they understand what they are paying for. But a green cost must be a seen cost, not one hidden in the fine print.
Section 87B of the Bill rightly requires that if a levy is passed on, the amount must be stated. That is a strong start. But we can go further. Will the implementing order require the SAF levy to appear as a clear, separate line item on all passenger tickets and cargo contracts? It should never be buried inside a \"taxes and fees\" bundle. To strengthen cost certainty, will the Government confirm that the indicative levy range shared publicly for the initial 1% target, around $3, $6 and $16 for short-, medium- and long-haul flights respectively, while noting that final amounts are likely to be even lower?
And will the Ministry consider codifying a cap in subsidiary legislation, so that families can plan with confidence? How will short-, medium- and long-haul be defined – by distance or flight time? And will rates vary across cabin classes?
For SMEs, predictability matters even more. Can the Minister of State ensure that cargo levies are transparently itemised in freight contracts, instead of being rolled into \"all-in\" rates? This transparency gives our small exporters the clarity to price their goods competitively and hold logistics partners accountable.
Second, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for this levy to be legitimate, it must also be fair. Those who contribute more to carbon emissions should bear a proportionate share of the cost. The Bill's powers for differentiation and remission under section 87B are, therefore, crucial. Can the Ministry commit to a progressive levy structure, where non-commercial, private and business jets contribute more than regular families flying economy?
Globally, there is a growing call for fairness in climate policy. Studies show that a small fraction of frequent flyers and premium travellers account for a disproportionately large share of aviation emissions. Many countries are exploring progressive levies to address that imbalance. Singapore should not shy away from this conversation.
On the other hand, essential flights, such as humanitarian missions, medical evacuations or pilot training, should rightly be exempted. Will the Ministry publish clear exemption criteria, so operators are not left guessing in an emergency? Will it also disclose, annually, how many exemptions were granted and why, so the public can see fairness in action? For SMEs facing urgent cargo needs, will there be a defined remission process, especially when cost pressures or timing make the levy burdensome? Fairness is not only about who pays. It is about ensuring no one is penalised for trying to do the right thing.
Third, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, our air hub is the heartbeat of our economy. Tens of thousands of Singaporeans, pilots, engineers, caterers, cleaners, depend on it every day. Section 87B specifies that the levy applies to flights taking off from Singapore. Can the Minister of State confirm that the levy will not apply to transit or transfer passengers? They are the lifeblood of Changi's success and essential to its competitiveness.
We must also guard against what some have called \"green fatigue\". Around the world, passengers and politicians are showing signs of giving up on greener air travel, weary of rising costs, divided politics and confusing regulations. Singapore cannot afford to be part of that retreat. We must show that ambition and accountability can co-exist.
That is why the timing and design of this levy matter. Changi Airport raised passenger and airline fees in November 2024 to fund its $3 billion infrastructure plan. If we now add a new SAF levy, will that risk pricing Singapore out of the regional race, pushing airlines toward Bangkok or Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA)? Likewise, with sustainable fuel procurement mandated, will budget carriers with thinner margins struggle to operate here? Could that affect connectivity and affordability for travellers?
Predictability is key. Will the Ministry consider publishing a multi-year levy schedule, setting out indicative rates for the next three to five years? A transparent roadmap will give both households and businesses the confidence to plan ahead. For cargo operators, can the Minister of State ensure that levies are structured with stable, geography-based rates and weight bands? That clarity will help our small and medium enterprises (SMEs) maintain Singapore's reputation as a reliable logistics hub.
Next, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, every green dollar must now show its work. Singaporeans will support this levy only if they know each cent is used responsibly and effectively to make our skies cleaner.
The creation of a ring-fenced SAF fund under section 25C is the right step forward. But good governance demands more than structure. It demands clarity, scrutiny and stewardship. Will CAAS be required to publish a detailed annual report showing how much was collected, how much SAF was purchased, where it was sourced, who supplied it and how the SAF EAs were allocated? What key performance indicators (KPIs) will the SAF Procuring Entity be measured against, competitive pricing, source diversification and maximising physical uplift at Changi? Will the fund and its registry undergo independent audits, with findings made public? And will the Ministry consider a statutory review clause, perhaps every three years, to assess whether the levy and fund remain effective and fit for purpose?
We must also be realistic. SAF currently accounts for less than 1% of global jet fuel consumption. Production remains costly and feedstocks are limited. That is why Singapore's approach must be pragmatic, scaling gradually, aggregating demand and building credibility step by step. Furthermore, when sourcing SAF, can we ensure that Singapore's investment strengthens domestic and regional capabilities, building our own production base, where feasible, and positioning local firms within the green aviation value chain?
Lastly, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill must also work hand-in-hand with international frameworks, especially CORSIA. Singaore already mandates monitoring and reporting through the Air Navigation Regulations. But we have not yet legislated the offsetting duties or penalties for non-compliance. Why stop halfway? Without enforcement, compliant airlines pay their fair share while others may get a free ride. More importantly, passengers risk being double-charged, once under the SAF levy and again under separate CORSIA-related offsets.
This concern has been echoed internationally. If countries fail to coordinate their climate measures, consumers lose trust and the green agenda falters. Can the Minister of State clarify when and how the CORSIA offsetting and penalty framework will be implemented, ideally through subsidiary legislation under the Air Navigation Act? Will the Ministry ensure that any CORSIA-related costs passed to consumers are clearly displayed as a separate line item, distinct from the SAF levy, to prevent confusion or duplication? And finally, will the framework apply only to flights between states that are CORSIA-participants, so our carriers remain aligned with global norms and remain competitive?
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill represents more than a change in law. It represents a change in mindset. It asks us to see sustainability not as a cost, but as an investment, in our future, in our children and in our planet. It asks our families to do their part, our businesses to innovate and our Government to lead with integrity and foresight.
We have spoken about transparency, so Singaporeans can see where every dollar goes. We have spoken about fairness, so the burden is shared justly. We have spoken about competitiveness, so our air hub remains strong in a turbulent world. We have spoken about accountability, so trust in our system remains unshakable. And we have spoken about alignment, so Singapore continues to lead by example on the global stage. But beyond all that, this Bill challenges us to look skyward and ask: how do we build a future where progress does not come at the planet's expense?
Around the world, some are giving up on greener air travel. They say the politics are too hard, the costs too high and the people too weary. But Singapore must not be among them. We must show that realism and resolve can walk hand-in-hand, that we can fly further because we choose to fly cleaner. If we get this right, Singapore will not just be a world-class air hub. We will be a trusted one, known for doing the right thing, even when it is not the easy thing.
Let us move forward with clear eyes, steady hands and open skies. Let us keep Singapore flying high, not just in the air, but in our ideals. I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Cai Yinzhou.
Mr Cai Yinzhou (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Sir, this Bill aims to establish the SAF Fund and to provide for the imposition of a SAF levy and supports the laudable goal of CAAS and MOT to kickstart the adoption of SAF in Singapore.
Sir, I seek to raise two key areas for the Minister's clarification.
The first is on the financial structure of the levy. It is accepted the high costs of SAF currently necessitates a measure and mechanism like this levy to support its initial adoption. However, I remain concerned that this policy decision appears to place the financial burden entirely upon passengers.
I respectfully ask the Minister of State to justify the approach and explain the considerations behind the choice, not to implement a model of financial risk sharing with airlines or fuel suppliers, or direct volume metric mandate on these commercial entities, an approach which has been adopted in other jurisdictions, such as EU and UK. As this levy is passed on to consumers, we need clear assurance that their contribution is both effective and monitored.
Flights from Singapore were previously estimated to increase by $3 to Bangkok; $6 to Tokyo and $16 to London. I would be grateful if the Minister of State could inform the House of the specific mechanisms and reporting protocols. CAAS was established to actively monitor these estimates and ensure that actual financial impact of the levy on ticket prices remains predictable and consistently aligns with the Ministry's initial projections.
A crucial point for public confidence is technical basis for the cost difference. The Ministry has previously stated, including in its discussion in 2023 that SAF is currently more than three times the cost of conventional jet fuel, thereby being unsuitable for use by the Republic of Singapore Air Force and its aircrafts, like the F-16. Could the Minister of State provide more detailed elaboration on the methodology, including the specific fossil fuel benchmark used to assess how the cost of the banded fuel of jet fuel was calculated and substantiated to be more than three times that of Jet Propellant 8 (JP-8) fuel?
Finally, we must leverage on our national strengths. Singapore is a major refining hub, home to significant self-production capacity, such as Neste's expanded facility. The Minister's assurance is sought on the strategy for how the presence of these advanced facilities will be utilised to bring the cost of SAF lower over time, rather than merely acting as a platform for centralised procurement and persistently high global market rates.
Secondly, on the need for public accounting in its management. This SAF levy is a public contribution towards a critical national goal and the accompanying trust must be transparently maintained. While the blueprint indicates the fund will purchase SAF at its actual market price, the Bill is not explicit on public reporting obligations. I urge to consider establishing a clear formal reporting obligation for CAAS regarding the SAF Fund. Will the Ministry commit to publish a regular and comprehensive report for the public? Such a report should document the total levy collected and expended, the volume and cost of SAF purchase, the actual SAF uplift proportion achieved by airlines and, most importantly, the measurable environmental impact and carbon emissions reduction delivered by the fund.
I commend the Ministry for this decisive step towards the long-term decarbonisation for our aviation industry. Notwithstanding these clarifications, Deputy Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Gho Sze Kee.
Ms Gho Sze Kee (Mountbatten): Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill introduces the SAF levy, a key part of the Sustainable Air Hub Blueprint and a step towards Singapore's net-zero carbon emissions. From next year, Singapore will be among the first countries and the first in Asia to mandate SAF use. The levy will also help airlines in Changi Airport meet CORSIA requirements, the global carbon reduction scheme for international aviation which will become mandatory in 2027.
Sir, let me begin by making my position unequivocal. I support the Bill.
Climate change is a major threat, especially for us, a tiny, low-lying island at the equator. We must do our part, not only for ourselves but also for our future generations. However, notwithstanding my support, I must voice a few caveats and seek some clarifications or, rather, reassurances, from the Minister.
Allow me to share some quick numbers with the House.
Currently, departing passengers from Changi Airport are charged a total of $65.20, comprising of the passenger service and security fee, the aviation levy and the airport development levy. This total sum is significantly higher than those of competing air hubs in the region. Let me offer some comparisons, based on current exchange rates in Singapore dollars. For KLIA, $23; Suvarnabhumi Airport in Bangkok, $30; Dubai International, $45; Incheon, $24. Changi Airport's passenger charges are also projected to rise annually till 2030, reaching $79.20 before any SAF levy is added.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I understand that Changi Airport offers unique value propositions over its competitors. We have strong values in connectivity, efficiency and quality of service. Changi is, simply put, a spectacular airport. Of course, I do not believe that we can successfully compete on cost and perhaps, nor should we. However, our current passenger fees are already higher than all of our regional competitors. If costs rise too much, surely, we risk undermining Changi's position as a global air hub.
Our competitors are also not standing still. Other airports are working hard to beat us at our own game. They are learning from us, improving on both hardware and software. Some are already nipping at our heels. Notably, none of our peer competitors, such as Incheon and Dubai airports, are as expensive. If we are not careful, if we take our eyes off the ball, someone else will be stealing our lunch.
Next, I note that the proposed amendments enable a levy on both passenger and cargo flights. Indeed, CORSIA obligations cover both categories. I shall not pre-empt the detailed announcement of the levy structure. We do have some sense of how the centralised levy will work for passengers and a ballpark figure for the initial rate. However, there is still little detail on how the levy mechanism will apply to cargo flights.
Sir, I must highlight this – Changi Airport is more than just a passenger hub. It is also a key cargo hub in the Asia Pacific. Beyond pure cargo flights, many services are hybrids, carrying both passengers and freight. Cargo customers tend to be more cost-sensitive. For them, intangibles, such as the Changi experience or the sights of Jewel have absolutely no bearing. What matters are efficiency, connectivity and cost.
In that regard, cargo operators will even be more sensitive to increases in levies and costs. The impact could also be more significant to them in absolute dollar terms, since freight consignments can be much larger than individual tickets. That is how equitable the levy system is. The size of the levy quantum will be of great concern to cargo operators. It will directly impact Singapore's standing as a leading cargo hub.
Sir, our status as a thriving air hub is crucial to our economy. It is a major driver of trade. It connects Singapore to the rest of the world. It also supports a large number of jobs, both directly and indirectly. The success of our air hub is crucial importance to our country. We must ensure that it remains strong and competitive. I am glad to know that the CAAS Sustainable Air Hub Blueprint, was recognised that environmental sustainability must be balanced with competitiveness.
The previous Minister for Transport had also repeatedly emphasised the same point in this House. There is no benefit in moving too far ahead of others in SAF adoption. I could not agree more. Sustainability and competitiveness must go hand in hand. Only when we maintain our competitiveness, only when we thrive, can we meaningfully pursue sustainability goals. Without economic strength, sustainability becomes a heavy burden and a constraint.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill demonstrates Singapore's commitment to our environmental responsibilities. But I hope the Minister can assure us that cost structures are being closely monitored and that our air hub will remain competitive even as we pursue sustainability goals. We must always remind ourselves that sustainability and economic competitiveness must be pursued together.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.
Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Changi): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to declare my interest as an authority member of the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore and as one of more than 50,000 proud workers in our aviation and aerospace industry.
Mr Deputy Speaker, aviation has always been and remains one of the key pillars of Singapore's economic success and competitiveness. Globally, air passenger traffic is projected by IATA to double by 2040, driven by a growing middle class and rising regional connectivity. Asia Pacific will lead this expansion and as a major global air hub, Singapore is well placed to capture a significant share of this growth.
With Terminal 5 coming online in 2030s, Changi Airport's capacity will increase by 50 million passengers annually, bringing total throughput to nearly 140 million passengers per year. This will reinforce Singapore's position as a leading global air hub for the future. This growth will not only strengthen air connectivity, but also catalyse growth across tourism, logistics, hospitality, retail, e-commerce and urban development. It will power our aerospace sector, a key pillar of our manufacturing base.
Today, Singapore accounts for over 10% of global maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) output, and for engine MRO, it accounts for close to 20% of global market share; a position earned through decades of trust and capability.
Singapore's aviation ecosystem, encompassing our airlines, airports, air navigation service providers and logistics partners, contributes about 5% of our gross domestic product and supports more than 190,000 jobs. When we include its wider economic impact through supply chains and tourism, aviation sustains about 529,000 jobs across our economy.
Mr Deputy Speaker, these are not just numbers. They reflect how deeply aviation is woven into our economic fabric. A strong aviation sector anchors growth, attracts investment, drives innovation and creates good jobs. Supporting it is not only an economic policy, it is a strategic necessity for Singapore's continued prosperity.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is estimated that the aviation sector contributes about 2% to 2.5% of global CO2 emissions. The industry recognises this challenge and is taking major steps to reduce its environmental impact. New-generation aircraft, such as, the Airbus A350 powered by Trent XWB engines, achieve up to 25% lower fuel burn and CO2 emissions through better aerodynamics, advanced materials and efficient propulsion. And the fleet renewal is supporting this transition.
Another key lever is SAF. Under the ECLIF3 programme, Airbus, Rolls Royce and the German Aerospace Centre successfully tested 100% SAF on both engines of an A350, demonstrating its compatibility and emissions benefits. Here in Singapore, CAAS' Sustainable Air Hub Blueprint sets out our roadmap towards net-zero aviation emissions by 2050, focusing on SAF adoption, electrification of ground operations and renewable energy deployment.
These efforts show that aviation growth and sustainability are not mutually exclusive. As a leading global hub, Singapore can prove that responsible aviation growth and climate stewardship can go hand in hand.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill, which strengthens Singapore's leadership in sustainable aviation and continues our commitment to global decarbonisation efforts. However, as we advance this important goal, we must take a balanced approach, recognising both its strategic advantages and practical implications.
I wish to raise three clarifications: firstly, how Singapore will ensure SAF supplies stability and manage price volatility while investing sufficiently in future production; secondly, how we will safeguard Singapore's competitiveness as an air hub amid regional expansion; and thirdly, how we will ensure fairness and equity in how the cost of transition is shared across passengers and industry stakeholders.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it has been noted in this debate that SAF currently costs three to five times more than conventional jet fuel, while global supply makes up less than 1% of total aviation fuel consumption. Decarbonising aviation is essential, but the transition must also be economically and operationally sustainable for airlines, passengers and industry players. Singapore has taken an important first step. Neste's expanded refinery in Tuas now produces more than one million tonnes of SAF annually, making it one of the largest facilities in the world and positioning Singapore as a key node in the regional SAF value chain.
However, other countries are rapidly increasing capacity too. In our region, EcoCeres Renewable Fuels and Petronas are developing similar facilities targeting about one million tonnes per year. With rising global demand and new mandates, such as, in France, Sweden and Japan requiring 10% SAF blending by 2030, we can expect increased competition for feedstock and price volatility.
Hence, my first clarification: how will Singapore manage this volatility? What measures will ensure stability in ticket pricing and airline operations, especially when market fluctuates?
Clause 5 of the Bill introduces section 25D, creating the SAF Fund, financed by a levy estimated at $3 for short-haul, $6 for medium-haul and $16 for long-haul flights. This is in addition to the levy that has already been imposed. Based on 2024 Changi Airport passenger volumes of 67.7 million passengers, this could generate at least a minimum $210 million annually; a meaningful start. But will the fund be sufficient to not only procure SAF, but to also develop local production capacity, support R&D and also diversify feedstocks?
How will this fund be aligned across agencies, like CAAS, the Economic Development Board and Enterprise Singapore, to build an end-to-end resilient SAF supply-chain that creates new green industries, good jobs and regional leadership for Singapore? This transition is not merely about SAF. It is also an economic opportunity to secure Singapore's place as a leader in sustainable aviation innovation.
Mr Deputy Speaker, on my second point. The global aviation race is intensifying. KLIA's Aeropolis Master Plan aims to handle over 100 million passengers a year. Bangkok's Airport is expanding through a US$4 billion project. Incheon Airport and Hong Kong International Airport's Three-Runway System will each soon handle up to 120 million passengers annually.
Against this backdrop, Singapore must remain vigilant. The proposed SAF levy, in addition to the levy that was already introduced, though small in absolute terms, could affect our price competitiveness, especially for transit traffic and air freight if neighbouring hubs delay similar moves.
Has the Ministry assessed the potential impact of this levy on Singapore's attractiveness as a transit and cargo hub? And what mitigation strategies are being considered to preserve our competitiveness, while sustaining our leadership in sustainable aviation? We must ensure that environmental responsibility does not inadvertently erode our competitiveness as an international hub. Instead, it should become a source of differentiation and trust.
Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, as we move toward increased sustainability, we must also ensure fairness in implementation. The proposed levy applies different rates by flight distance – $3, $6 and $16 depending on short-, medium- or long-haul flights. But, within each flight, passengers pay vastly different fares across the different classes of flights. Will the levy be applied proportionately across the different passenger classes, so that it does not disproportionately burden economy class travellers?
Likewise, how will the cargo sector be factored into this framework, given its integral role in Singapore's hub competitiveness? And what about private flights? How will it fit into this framework? Ensuring fairness and transparency will be critical to maintaining public trust and broad-based support for this important transition.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in summary, my clarifications concern: firstly, ensuring price stability and meaningful investments in building local SAF capability and capacity; secondly, safeguarding Singapore's air hub competitiveness; and thirdly, upholding fairness and transparency in sharing this burden of cost. We must monitor these developments carefully to ensure that the policy intent to encourage SAF adoption remains aligned with Singapore's long-term strategic goal of being a leading global and sustainable aviation hub.
I also note that no timeline has been specified for future price adjustments. It is therefore important that we are clear about the levers and conditions that must be met before any price revisions are made, to ensure transparency, predictability and fairness. Ultimately, this is not a choice between economic growth and environmental stewardship, it is about advancing both, together, sustainably.
Notwithstanding these clarifications, I express my support for the Bill, which marks an important step in positioning Singapore as a global leader in sustainable and responsible aviation while creating good jobs, fostering innovation and ensuring that our skies and our future remain bright and green.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Foo Cexiang.
Mr Foo Cexiang (Tanjong Pagar): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. \"The greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world.\" This was how President Donald Trump described climate change just last month when he addressed the United Nations General Assembly. And he went on, \"All of these predictions made by the United Nations and many others, often for bad reasons, were wrong. They were made by stupid people. But of course, their countries' fortunes, and given those same countries, no chance for success. If you do not get away from this green scam, your country is going to fail.\"
Given President Trump’s remarks and in the current context where cost-of-living continues to be of high concern, it may be attractive for countries worldwide to abandon our climate change strategies. After all, if even the second largest emitter of carbon dioxide has decided to rubbish the endeavour, none of us alone will be able to move the needle – certainly not Singapore.
The SAF levy which this Bill provides for is one of Singapore’s policies that will contribute towards the global climate change mitigation effort. It will mean that from 2026, travellers flying out of Singapore will pay slightly higher airfares. Previous preliminary estimates from CAAS suggest that economy-class passengers may incur an additional $3 levy for flights to Bangkok, $6 for flights to Tokyo, $16 for flights to London. The levy will be used to purchase SAF in bulk to achieve our target of 1% of all jet fuel used at Changi Airport and Seletar Airport in 2026. Should we abandon this policy?
On the other hand, there are some who say that our target is not ambitious enough. They may quote regions like the EU, which I understand has agreed to rules mandating 6% in 2030, rising to 70% in 2050 and countries like Japan, which aims to have SAF account for 10% of its aviation fuel supply by 2030. I note that the hon Member Mr Dennis Tan too, had asked last year if the Government will study plans by other countries with higher SAF targets such as Britain, Japan and the EU to raise our projected targets even further. But today I heard he also said that he was conscious of the financial impact to travellers. So, perhaps we would invite him to clarify whether he is of the view where we should have higher targets and therefore higher levy on travellers or has he changed his mind with the concern of the financial impact on travellers today?
Sir, I speak as someone who has benefited from and believes in the potential of air travel. It connected me to people and cultures worldwide, to develop friendships which I know will last a lifetime. It opened my mind to new sights, sounds and perspectives. It further anchored my sense of multi-culturalism. I hope that many more in our current generation and future generations in Singapore and beyond Singapore will also be able to benefit from air travel.
Aviation is responsible for about 2.5% of global carbon emissions. However, estimates are that 80% of the global population, about 5 to 6 billion people worldwide, have never taken an air flight – and there will be some in Singapore as well. Imagine if everyone took just one flight. The aviation related emissions will skyrocket. The impact on the environment will be immense, and this may then severely constrain the options for future generations. This is why I believe we need to reduce emissions from air travel. And based on current science, SAF is the most viable pathway to do so in the short and medium term.
Members have highlighted that Singapore's approach to introducing SAF is novel. We are the first country to introduce a levy rather than a mandate. CAAS’ intent is to fix the cost of using greener jet fuel so that travellers have certainty. CAAS will also manage costs by procuring sustainable fuel centrally on behalf of carriers, reaping economies of scale. Some Members asked: would it be better to charge the airlines instead? But I am of the view that having a transparent charge to the travellers avoids the risk of airlines using this as a reason to inject further upward pressure on prices because of a lack of transparency.
So, Sir, this approach protects both the environment and the competitiveness of Singapore’s air hub, a major economic sector for us. It has at its heart the interests of both the current generation and future generations. It may not have as ambitious a target as some other countries, but it is a target backed up by a robust plan as the Bill shows, implementable, deliverable, not just for show. And may I add, while it is important that we understand, consider and assess the strategies taken by other countries, there must be occasions where our convictions give us the strength to take our own path. And this is something that this Government has never shied away from.
In conclusion, Singapore’s SAF levy may not move the global needle on climate change. But it is a commitment by all Singaporeans and all travellers who come through our airports to give hope to our future generations. In the words of Dr Jane Goodall: \"And even today, when the planet is dark, there is still hope. Don’t lose hope. If you lose hope, you become apathetic and do nothing.\" Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Sun Xueling.
Ms Sun Xueling: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Members for their support of the Bill, as well as their comments and suggestions.
Ms Lee Hui Ying, Ms Gho Sze Kee, Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the impact of the SAF levy on Singapore’s hub competitiveness.
Singapore has chosen a pragmatic and balanced approach. We are a council member of ICAO and are committed to working towards the ICAO's long-term aspirational goal of net zero carbon emissions for international aviation by 2050. Airlines and passengers fly through Changi Airport for various reasons, including safety, network and connectivity.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
We will continue to keep a close watch on our charges and costs to ensure our air hub's competitiveness. With regard to SAF's adoption, we have calibrated our approach to our circumstances, with safeguards to maintain our air hub’s competitiveness.
As international aviation moves towards decarbonisation, our modest 1% SAF target sends a firm demand signal to spur production and ecosystem development in Singapore. As a leading air hub, this lays the groundwork for Singapore’s broader SAF adoption in the future. At the same time, with a fixed cost envelope approach, we can decide how much costs we want to bear and provide cost certainty for airlines and passengers. This ensures that our competitiveness is not adversely impacted. We have also adopted a differentiated approach for transit and transfer passengers where they will not incur the levy. I will elaborate on this later.
Mr Dennis Tan and Ms Poh Li San asked about adjustments and triggers to the SAF target and levy in the future if airlines were to voluntarily decarbonise or if SAF prices remain volatile. We will review Singapore's national SAF target and the SAF levy periodically, taking into account global developments in SAF supply, prices and the policies of other countries. To echo Mr Foo, Ms Gho and Ms Poh, we will ensure Singapore remains aligned with international progress while safeguarding our hub's competitiveness.
Ms Lee, Ms Gho, Mr Taha, Mr Tan and Mr Yip have asked about further details on the design of the SAF levy. Should this Bill pass, CAAS will share more details on the SAF levy and the implementation date by the end of this year. The SAF levy is designed to allocate the cost of meeting Singapore’s SAF target across different user groups, including passenger, cargo and general or business aviation flights based on their relative fuel consumption. This approach ensures that the costs of SAF adoption are shared across all air transport users.
For passenger flights, we have earlier estimated the SAF levy amounts for passengers on an economy class direct flight to be about $3, $6 and $16 for short-, medium- and long-haul flights respectively. I would like to assure the House that the levy to be announced later this year is within what we have communicated earlier and is determined based on factors such as distance flown and cabin class. Stakeholders will be given sufficient lead time to prepare ahead of the implementation date.
As Mr Yip has highlighted, transit and transfer passengers are a critical part of air traffic through Changi Airport. Although they do not start or end their journeys in Singapore, transit and transfer passengers enhance Singapore’s connectivity by supporting a broader network of destinations and higher flight frequencies. This strengthens Singapore’s position as a global aviation hub, which in turn benefits origin-destination passengers, particularly Singapore residents, by making flights more convenient and affordable. As passengers may choose to transit or transfer through different hubs, we need to ensure that Changi remains competitive so that they will continue to choose to transit or transfer through Changi. As such, there are currently no plans for passengers transiting or transferring through Changi Airport to incur the SAF levy.
Mr Tan had also asked about potential carbon leakage arising from the levy and if airline operators may choose to operate elsewhere. Airlines choose where to operate based on a variety of factors including safety, network, connectivity and experience at various airports. In addition, other jurisdictions in the region are exploring and developing SAF policies and targets. Our differentiated approach towards transit and transfer passengers will avoid situations where such passengers choose to fly via other air hubs or airlines where there are no SAF policies in place.
Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Yip asked about how Singapore will manage the volatility of SAF prices to minimise disruption to airlines and consumers. Mr Cai Yinzhou also asked about the methodology used to calculate the SAF premium. SAF levy rates will be calculated based on the current 1% SAF target. However, within a fixed period, should the actual SAF premium fluctuate, the SAF levy rates will remain fixed. This provides certainty to passengers and airlines. What then changes is the actual SAF uplift. As the SAF market remains nascent, we will closely monitor SAF premiums and global developments, and review if adjustments to the SAF levy are required in the longer run. We will continue to prioritise providing cost certainty to passengers and businesses.
Ms Poh and Mr Cai asked about the decision to impose the levy on passengers instead of airlines. To clarify, the SAF levy is payable by persons that will be specified in the Order, such as aircraft operators. The levy payable is calculated based on, among other things, the ultimate user of the air transport service, such as the passengers or shippers. Aircraft operators will be allowed to pass on the levy to the end users such as passengers and shippers. To assure Mr Yip, if the levy is passed on to end users, the amount of the SAF levy that each end user is paying must be reflected transparently.
Mr Yip asked about the exemption criteria for the SAF levy. The SAF levy will apply to all flights departing from Singapore. We nonetheless recognise that there are flights where the levy should not be payable, such as aircraft used for flight training and flights for charitable and humanitarian purposes. The types of flights that are excluded from the payment of SAF levy will be specified in the Order, similar to the approach taken for the aviation levy and airport development levy.
Ms Poh asked for details on the public consultations done. CAAS has been engaging airlines and other industry partners closely on the SAF levy framework since last year. Feedback has been constructive. CAAS will continue to do so as it firms up details for implementation.
Mr Cai, Mr Chia, Ms Lee, Ms Poh, Mr Sharael Taha, Mr Tan and Mr Yip asked for more details on the procurement of SAF and our plans to strengthen production capabilities. To support long-term supply resilience, Singapore's 1% SAF uplift target is designed to send a clear and credible demand signal to the market. This will give producers the certainty to invest in production capacity and supply chains in Singapore and the region. As a member of the international civil aviation community, Singapore is committed to ensure that the SAF procured complies with the requirements under ICAO's CORSIA.
In line with Singapore's Sustainable Jurong Island vision to manufacture sustainable products to help sectors decarbonise, the Economic Development Board has been in discussions with existing energy majors on retrofitting existing refinery units, and new entrants for greenfield SAF production. The Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) and research institutes are also pre-investing in technologies that could be of use to advance biofuels production. These are part of our efforts to build a sustainable and reliable SAF ecosystem, which will also result in more good jobs for Singaporeans. Should this Bill pass, CAAS will share more details on the central procurement of SAF and SAF environmental attributes subsequently.
To Mr Cai, Mr Tan and Mr Yip's questions on governance and reporting requirements, the SAF Fund will be administered and managed by CAAS, with robust governance mechanisms in place to ensure transparency and accountability in the use of the Fund. These include regular reporting, independent audits and outcome tracking against the national SAF target. CAAS will provide updates on the SAF Fund and SAF target in its annual financial statements and sustainability reports.
Mr Chia and Mr Yip asked about how the Bill would work in tandem with international frameworks, such as CORSIA. CORSIA is the world's only global market-based measure for international aviation. The international aviation community reaffirmed its commitment to CORSIA at the recent ICAO Assembly last month.
Singapore is already complying with the monitoring, reporting and verification requirements under CORSIA. When implemented, the SAF framework will further enable aircraft operators to comply with the requirements under CORSIA, such as by procuring SAF that is CORSIA-eligible. Legislation, such as this Bill, alongside others, such as the Air Navigation (Carbon Emissions and Reporting) Regulations, will continue to support our sustainability plans.
Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill enables Singapore to take a meaningful step towards decarbonising aviation. It balances our environmental responsibility with pragmatism, providing the foundation for Singapore to grow as a sustainable air hub. I thank Members for supporting this Bill and I look forward to working closely with all stakeholders to implement this Bill effectively. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Clarifications. Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for her concluding remarks. I just want to reply to the clarification which Member Mr Foo Cexiang sought. Mr Foo is right, I had made certain clarifications on this issue with the previous Minister. I heard the Minister with his explanation and I am prepared to let this Fund and the plans take off and see how we progress in the initial years and then we can take it from there.
Mr Speaker: Any other clarifications for Senior Minister of State Sun? No?
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Sun Xueling]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Funding Each Child: A Preschool Voucher Proposal","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.\"
Question proposed.
Mr Speaker: Mr Kenneth Tiong.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, since serving as a Member of Parliament, I have seen first-hand the impact of national policies on small, independent preschools in my division.
As a parent of young children, I feel these issues acutely. Their voices warn of a serious problem: the quiet extinction of diversity in our preschools. Many young parents may have read in CNA of a spate of preschool closures over the last few years – at least six reported in the past two years alone. And there are many that go unreported. I will explain why.
Mr Speaker, let us first understand the landscape. In 2013, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) was formed under the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) to raise preschool standards. Under it, two major schemes now dominate the sector. First, the Anchor Operator scheme (AOP). Five large, Government-supported operators: PCF Sparkletots, NTUC My First Skool, E-Bridge, Skool4Kidz, and M.Y World. They receive significant grant funding and priority HDB site allocation, in exchange for capping fees and meeting quality requirements.
Second, the Partner Operator scheme (POP). These are mid-sized players with slightly higher fee caps but similar obligations.
Together, these two schemes have grown at a staggering rate. Today, over 53% of all preschools in Singapore are either an AOP or POP. PCF and NTUC My First Skool alone account for at least 30% of all preschools. The Government has stated that over 65% of preschoolers are in Government-supported preschools, with a target of around 80% by 2025.
There is another angle of competition, coming directly from the Ministry of Education (MOE). MOE Kindergartens (MKs) were launched in 2014 and are co-located within primary schools. A major draw for parents is priority under Phase 2A of Primary 1 registration for the primary school which creates a \"through-train\" for Primary 1 admission. There are now 56 MKs. You may know some of these primary schools: Temasek, Princess Elizabeth, Gongshang. This has pulled students away from independent preschools.
Independent operators face a pincer movement. From MSF and ECDA: anchor and partner operators who receive significant fiscal funding and preferential allocation to Housing and Development Board (HDB) sites with much lower rent. From MOE: kindergartens operating with the full backing of the national Budget, no binding constraint of rental costs, and a compelling competitive advantage – an implicit pathway into the affiliated primary school.
In this environment, even church kindergartens, who have been operating for decades, paying zero rent to use church premises, are also shutting down, halving from over 200 centres 10 years ago to over 100 today. As one operator told me: \"Even zero rent also cannot survive.\"
The direction of travel is clear: the \"middle tier\" of independent preschools is shrinking.
Mr Speaker, I support making preschools affordable and raising educators’ wages. But the method of direct operator subsidies used to achieve them has inadvertently created a deeply distorted market. The unfairness comes from the way subsidies are given. There are two types of subsidies. The first is the parent-level subsidy, which many parents will know.
The Basic Childcare Subsidy provides a transparent and fair offset of $150 to $300 per month for any citizen child in an ECDA-licensed centre.
But the second far more opaque category of operator-level subsidy is largely implemented through direct fiscal transfers. On the MSF side, this is only available to AOPs and POPs. On the MK side, this comes directly from the MOE national Budget. This is a direct transfer to these chosen Government-supported operators, and no one else.
The Government's method has thus not created a level playing field; it has created a trap. For independent operators, this trap has three walls. First, they cannot remain. They face dwindling enrollment due to the breakneck expansion of AOPs and MKs, which use unequal fiscal grants to offer lower fees. Simultaneously, these state-backed centres create a net talent drain by offering higher salaries, leaving independents to struggle with rising rental costs and a fight for survival.
Second, they cannot consolidate. Some say, \"Join the Partner Operator scheme\", as this is the intended way for private operators to enter the Government-supported umbrella. For many, this is a difficult choice: (a) the consortium requirement means they must expose their books to one another. One lead holds the purse strings and counterparty risk is high; (b) the selection criteria is opaque – if rejected, ECDA provides no reason and no feedback; (c) there is commercial lock-in: once fees are capped under the POP scheme, exiting is near-impossible as parents will likely not accept a reversion to significantly higher fees.
Third, many cannot sell. For many operators in HDB sites, the inability to sell their businesses is a frustrating obstacle. Transfer of lease requires HDB and ECDA approval, but rejections are given without reasons. One operator's sale was blocked with the vague, one-sentence justification that the new owner could not \"ensure the continuity of care and education,\" leaving them with no path of appeal.
Cannot remain. Cannot consolidate. Cannot sell. The only path left is to shut down. And that is what many do. So, this quiet extinction continues.
Mr Speaker, this is not right. Many private operators started with good intentions to provide a way of education for their kids, pouring their life savings and their passion into creating nurturing spaces. But today, many feel trapped.
Speaker, let me state plainly what many operators believe. They suspect the Government wants to nationalise the sector. They ask three questions and they deserve straight answers.
Question one: does the Government want standardised, cookie-cutter early education? Many feel the push for AOPs and MKs penalises operators who offer unique models – small teacher-child ratios, project-based learning, Montessori, Reggio Emilia, faith-based schools – that do not fit the standard mold.
Question two: does the Government wish to nationalise this sector? Because if the intention is not nationalisation, why are these features present: AOP share increasing, MK count increasing, share of children served by AOPs, POPs and MKs targeted to be 80% by 2025, and no articulated vision for the independent sector beyond its “managed-decline”.
Question three: is the Government's ideal outcome a kindergarten market dominated by MKs, with the pre-kindergarten market dominated by major AOPs?
Mr Speaker, let me give a further example of why operators perceive a deep lack of fairness in the system and raises questions about whether ECDA’s actions serve the entire sector equitably.
On 29 October 2022, MSF Minister Masagos announced significant pay rises for educators in AOPs. However, long-standing ECDA rules require that fee increases for the following year must be notified by 1 September of the previous year. So, fee notifications for 2023 had to be submitted by 1 September 2022. This timing trapped private operators: they were locked out of adjusting fees to match the new wage benchmarks, yet were immediately exposed to talent poaching by AOPs offering the pay rises. I ask the Ministry to clarify if any transitional provisions were made for private operators caught by this announcement.
Mr Speaker, the human cost of this system starts with our children and radiates outwards to their teachers, their parents and finally, all of us as taxpayers. At the centre are the children. While I have great admiration for those who work in AOPs and MKs, which have good programs on science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) and public speaking, we must acknowledge these systems’ flaws. High teacher-child ratios mean less individual attention. Furthermore, MSF’s top-down directives to include neurodiverse children create chaotic environments.
The typical AOP setting, with its bright white lights, cluttered displays and high noise levels, is often unsuited for the neurodiverse, and in turn, diverts resources from neurotypical children who must learn in a more disrupted environment.
The educational philosophy itself is also narrowing. MKs increasingly run a standardised programme as their principals focus on Primary 1 readiness and “school-ify” our young children. I do not blame them, if their key performance indicators are more for Primary 1 results over preschool creativity, the push for Primary 1 readiness will almost always win.
But we should have the space to “let children be children”. The accelerated roll-out of MKs with priority Primary 1 admission, feeds parental anxiety and creates focus on academic readiness over holistic development.
Mr Speaker, we should be preparing children not for Primary 1, but for life.
There is an immense cost placed upon our teachers, who are on the frontlines of a system breeding burnout. They navigate an unstable market, with centres shutting down left and right, and are increasingly pushed into \"cookie-cutter\" state-led models that kill their passion for teaching. They manage large kindergarten 2 classes of 25 children and find it hard to give individualised attention. They spend precious time dealing with paperwork and writing incident reports instead of teaching. And they operate in a “kiasi” culture, driven by conservative interpretations of ECDA circulars. This is a culture where pencils must be stored lying flat for safety, where operators are afraid to let children taste prata during cultural lessons.
This high-stress, low-trust model is unsustainable. I am told by both teachers and operators that it is causing many teachers to burnout and leave the AOP system, often after bonuses are paid. While I do not have official data, the anecdotal attrition estimates shared with me are concerningly high.
This brings us to the cost for parents: a severe diminution of choice. As independent operators close, parents lose access to the diversity that could offer a refuge from these systemic flaws.
Finally, there is a cost to all of us as taxpayers. The current funding model is entirely opaque. Without transparency on operator-level subsidies, it is impossible to assess the true cost and efficiency of these schemes. Worse, we may be funding wasteful competition. In some estates like Punggol and Jurong West, multiple AOPs are clustered together in a small area, all \"fighting for numbers\", displaying what they in China call \"involution\" or \"内卷\": a zero-sum game of wasteful competition.
Mr Speaker, the fundamental problem is that MSF and MOE are relying on operators – AOPs, POPs, MKs – to uplift the sector instead of genuinely implementing sector-wide reforms. Their three policy goals – affordability, increasing educator salaries, and quality assurance – are rolled out via chosen operators. I will lay out a sector-wide reform without biasing towards particular operators.
First, we must fund the child, not the school. Let subsidies follow the child. Instead of funnelling opaque grants to select operators, we can create a portable preschool voucher that bundles all public support into a transparent, per-child amount. Parents can use it at any licensed centre. This empowers parents to choose a preschool that best fits their child's needs – be it PCF, Montessori, faith-based organisations, or play-based centres. It forces all schools, including state-backed giants, to compete fairly on quality, philosophy, service; without pre-determining the winner's business model.
In fact, this is not a radical leap, because ECDA itself moved from funding AOPs based on centre capacity to a per-child funding model earlier this year. This principle should be expanded to all operators, not just AOPs. On fee control: the Government may fear subsidy capture – that operators will absorb the voucher without lowering fees. Let me offer a different view. The surest way to keep fees in check is to keep the market open and contestable. A January 2024 study on childcare in Minnesota found that when you fund parents directly, the market finds a way to create more supply. They found that increased voucher funding led to more providers entering the market, an expansion of available slots, and only modest price increases.
This is what a healthy responsive market looks like. It is diversity – and the capacity of all to scale – that gives a market supply-elasticity. A system where operators \"cannot remain, cannot consolidate and cannot sell\" would create inelasticity and potential future subsidy capture.
This is not a leap into the unknown. Australia runs a portable, per-child subsidy, the Child Care Subsidy, that follows the child to any approved service. It is paid to providers to reduce the bill and is governed by a published rate cap that limits the total subsidised amount. Portable funding across operators, transparent reference prices and quality assurance can coexist.
By contrast, the current system is highly susceptible to subsidy capture – with chosen operators capturing massive unequal subsidies that may not reach parents as choice or quality improvements. With vouchers, parents can control where the money goes. This will fix the school-level market where subsidies distort operator competition.
Second, embed policy goals in the voucher. Speaker, the Government’s instinct is to solve every preschool problem – from teacher pay to special needs – by leaning on its chosen operators. This creates a two-tier system by design. Every preschool policy target begins to look for an operator-led solution.
There is a better way. We can use voucher supplements to achieve these policy targets while preserving a contestable market.
For teacher wages: instead of selective grants, we can offer a \"wage supplement\" to the voucher for any centre that pays its teachers above certain benchmarks. The higher the pay, the larger the supplement. We can enforce this transparently using Central Provident Fund data to verify wages and National Institute of Early Childhood Development standards to ensure teacher quality. It turns every operator into a potential partner in raising standards.
For special needs, the same principle applies. Instead of forcing top-down integration, we give every child with assessed needs a portable, ring-fenced voucher supplement, based on their assessed needs, such as specialised teachers, lower ratios, or sensory-friendly environments. This funding follows the child, empowering parents of neurodiverse children to choose centres with resources to provide proper support. It will also allow the emergence of specialised centres.
Some may point to Hong Kong, which once had a pure flat-rate voucher system, but moved away from it in 2017. Among the reasons given for moving away were ineffectiveness for raising teacher pay, addressing special needs and helping low-income families. In my assessment, the Hong Kong system’s flaw lay more with the flat rate, than the voucher system itself. We can learn from this by using targeted funding supplements for these policy targets: lower-income families, special needs, teacher wages.
Three, contestable sites for public benefit. Mr Speaker, Singapore has unique policy levers that many other systems, including Hong Kong’s, do not – such as our stock of preferential allocation sites at HDB estates and primary schools. I believe we must make access to these locations fair and contestable. The principle should be simple: public sites for public benefit. We can open up tenders for new preschool sites in HDB estates and kindergarten spaces within our primary schools, making it a core contractual requirement that any winning bidder must adhere to a strict fee cap. This ensures the public subsidy on rent is passed on directly to parents as affordability.\"
I propose two pilots. First, MSF and the Ministry of National Development to run a sector-wide, open tender for the next batch of preschool sites in new HDB estates. Second, MOE to pilot this same open-tender model in a small number of primary schools, say, five initially, inviting all qualified operators to compete.
Mr Speaker, in closing, I ask this Government for the following.
First, to answer the three questions. Does the Government want standardised, cookie-cutter early education? Does the Government want to nationalise this sector? Is the Government's ideal outcome an AOP to MK nationalised model?
Second, fairness. To clarify ECDA's actions in October 2022 regarding the wage announcement timing and to commit to level-playing field policies going forward. This means dismantling the walls of the trap that operators find themselves in. Allow them to consolidate by providing detailed POP selection criteria and right of appeal. Allow them to sell their preschools.
Third, to implement the three-pillar reform. A portable voucher system to fund the child, not the school; a tiered voucher supplement system that embeds policy goals like better teacher pay and special needs support; and a fair and contestable process for allocating preferential sites, with fee caps as a firm condition.
Mr Speaker, this Government mentions how the world is becoming more uncertain. At this juncture, enforcing an educational monoculture is exactly the wrong philosophy toward an uncertain world. We need more diversity, not less. I appeal to the Government's sense of fairness and to parents' lived experience: let us not allow this quiet extinction to continue. If we have five more years of this, I think there will be nothing left to save. Let us shift our focus from creating national champions to nurturing a vibrant and resilient preschool ecosystem for all our children. Let us be pro-child, pro-teacher, pro-market, pro-diversity. Thank you.
Mr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Eric Chua): Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Kenneth Tiong for moving this Motion.
This Government is focused on outcomes. We are committed to providing every child with a good start in life. Preschools play an important part in supporting our children's development, while meeting parents' caregiving needs. Over the past decade, preschool enrolment in Singapore has steadily increased. Today, around nine in 10 Singaporean children, aged three to six, are enrolled in preschool. We have enough full-day preschool places to accommodate every resident child aged three and above.
The Government has no plans to nationalise preschool education. We value a diverse preschool sector where private preschools offer niche programmes that meet different preferences and needs of parents. We intend to keep the market open so that parents can continue to have choices. Our foremost objective, as rightly mentioned by Mr Tiong, has been to ensure accessibility, affordability as well as quality of our preschools for our parents' children. And we do this today through a mix of measures.
First, on the supply side, we provide operator grants and impose fee caps for Government-supported preschools and 80% of preschoolers can have a place in Government-supported preschools by the end of this year. Second, on the demand end, we provide a suite of subsidies. And third, to uplift overall sectorial standards which will not happen organically, we work with the sector to provide broad based support.
On the supply side, we fund private operators on the AOP or POP schemes to ensure they keep within fee caps while investing in quality improvements. In January this year, we reduced full day childcare monthly fee caps for AOP and POP by $40 and will further reduce it by $30 dollars next year.
To ensure that our AOPs and POPs maintain high standards of quality, operators go through a rigorous selection process, not one that is opaque as the Member suggested. Criteria consider factors such as the applicants' track record in providing quality childcare services, financial sustainability and accessibility of centres and local preschool demand. Applicants must also demonstrate commitment and ability to meet the AOP and POP scheme requirements, which includes the ability to provide affordable and quality preschool services and enhance, professional development and career prospects for early childhood professionals.
Mr Tiong suggested removing direct operator grants and replacing them with a per child subsidy via preschool vouchers for families. Implementing a vouchers scheme alone may result in unintended consequences such as increases in preschool fees without corresponding improvements in accessibility or quality, as experiences in some countries have shown. In Hong Kong, where the preschool voucher scheme was implemented in 2007, but eventually discontinued, it worsened in equity as affluent families utilised vouchers for extra educational programmes. Similarly, in the United Kingdom, a nursery voucher programme implemented in 1996 was also discontinued shortly, because rather than improving quality and choice, it created unfair competition, reduced provider diversity and potentially harmed educational outcomes for young children.
On the demand end, we adopt a comprehensive approach to preschool affordability by keeping fees for Government-supported preschools low, and providing both universal and means tested childcare subsidies to parents. The Government provides all Singaporean children with basic subsidies of up to $300 each for full day childcare as well as means tested additional subsidies for eligible families. As a result of both fee caps, as well as subsidies, we have been able to effectively reduce out-of-pocket expenses, while ensuring access and choice of quality preschools for families.
Full day childcare expenses before means tested subsidies will be similar to what households pay for primary school and after school care fees combined in 2026. From January 2026, a dual income family with a monthly income of $10,000 will pay $235 per month for full day childcare in an AOP preschool after subsidies, half of what they would have paid in 2019.
Mr Tiong has implied that the preschool voucher system would give parents more autonomy to choose a preschool that suits their children's needs best and allowing for a market mechanism to work. This incentive is already built into the nature of childcare subsidies which preschools receive based on the number of children enrolled. Parents today are discerning when choosing preschools that best meet their child's needs and preferences, and this has promoted healthy competition among preschool operators and consequent improvements in quality.
A third plank in our strategy is to work with the sector to provide broad based support to uplift sectorial standards. Mr Tiong suggested using targeted voucher supplements to advance national objectives such as raising teacher wages. Salary increases must correspond with higher professional skills and contributions. A proposal to provide vouchers to preschools may not necessarily raise educators' salaries. Without due consideration for skills development and safeguards, such a move may run the risk of fee escalation without corresponding increase in quality of teaching.
In contrast, the Government has continued to make significant sector-wide moves over the past decade to invest heavily in professional development, enhance career progression and improve working conditions of early childhood educators. And one such example is the setting up of the National Institute of Early Childhood Development in 2019.
As a result of these concrete efforts to uplift sector quality, salaries of early childhood educators and leaders in AOP and POP centres have increased by at least 19% on average from 2022 to 2024, reflecting the deepest skills and contributions of our early childhood professionals.
I now address some other suggestions made. Mr Tiong suggested using vouchers to advance support for children with special needs. The Government has been enhancing support for children with developmental needs. We have enhanced subsidies for early intervention services and accelerated the increase in the number of Government funded places for children requiring moderate to high levels of early intervention support by almost 80% since 2020. ECDA is piloting a new Inclusive Support Programme (INSP) and we will expand the pilot by another 600 places from 2026.
On tenders for HDB and primary school sites, HDB sites are allocated to Government-supported preschools to avail affordable preschool services to residents soon after they move in. Nevertheless, I want to assure him that there are HDB sites open to all operators to bid competitively for, even as ECDA works with HDB to ensure that there are sufficient sites allocated for affordable preschool places today.
Mr Tiong asks about preschool salary enhancements in 2022. To give better context, ECDA has been working with AOPs and POPs to raise salaries and deepen professionalisation since 2016. In 2022, we signalled salary increases, paced over two years to maintain competitiveness relative to the broader labour market. Before the 2022 announcement, salaries for early childhood educators in Government supported preschools had already increased by 20% on average since 2018.
Sir, preschools play a key role in meeting families caregiving needs and complement parents in supporting our children's development. I can say so because I think about this every day when I send my five-year-old son to preschool in the mornings. The average Government expenditure per preschool age child has increased from $7,900 in 2020 to $13,000 last year, with a higher amount spent per child in both AOP and POP preschools and on children from lower-income families.
In 2019, we made a decisive move to expand Government supported preschool places to cater to 80% of preschoolers, so more Singaporean families can benefit from good access to affordable and quality preschools by the end of this year. We are getting there, but our work is not done. We will continue to evolve our policies to improve access to affordable and quality preschools across the sector – so that every child can have a good start in life.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 2(3)(a), I wish to inform hon Members that the Sitting tomorrow will commence at 11.30 am. Order. Order.
Adjourned accordingly at 6.49 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":"Take-up Rate for Hospital Clinician Scheme Across Specialties","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"16 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) how the Hospital Clinician Scheme is being taken up across different specialties; and (b) what measures are in place to support retention and long-term career development of doctors on this track.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The response will also address similar questions filed by Dr Hamid Razak1,2 for a future Sitting.
Under the new care team model introduced this year, the public healthcare sector has three main medical career tracks: Family Physicians, Hospital Clinicians (HCs) and Specialists. HCs are trained in broad-based competencies to coordinate care across specialties and serve as principal doctors. They are on a separate career track and not tied to specific specialties.
To date, we have around 150 HCs deployed across various departments such as medicine, surgery, paediatrics and emergency medicine within public healthcare institutions based on service needs.
The Ministry of Health (MOH) has reviewed the HC scheme to make it more attractive. This includes a new apex grade with professional development opportunities comparable to doctors in the specialist and consultant family physician tracks. We are also reviewing the remuneration of HCs, to ensure it is commensurate with doctors in the other career tracks who take on similar roles.
Public hospitals track the care outcomes of patients closely, including readmission rates, infection rates, occurrence of adverse events and average length of stay. We track this across settings and disease groups. In fact, it was through monitoring patient outcomes and understanding of the needs of an ageing patient profile, that we decided it is time to take a decisive step to evolve the care team model, with the help of HCs.
MOH works with the three local medical schools to update students on the medical career tracks in the public healthcare sector. Medical students undergo clinical rotations as part of their curriculum, where they have the opportunity to practise alongside doctors across family physician, HC and specialist tracks. There are also career guidance talks and an annual careers day organised for medical students and junior doctors, in addition to career counselling provided by faculty and mentors.
Indeed, many students are still inclined to take up residency, but we hope that with the revised HC scheme and the recognition of Family Medicine as a specialty, students will seriously consider all three medical career tracks.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health what steps are being taken to ensure medical students are adequately informed about the Hospital Clinician Scheme as a career pathway, given that many decide on specialties early and structure their research and electives to strengthen residency prospects.","2 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what care quality metrics will be tracked under the Hospital Clinician Scheme to safeguard patient outcomes; and (b) what indicators will be monitored to ensure clinician well-being and sustainability as they take on broader responsibilities."],"footNoteQuestions":["16"],"questionNo":"16"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics for Fatalities and Injuries Related to MDWs Engaged in High-rise Cleaning","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"17 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in each of the past 10 years, what is the annual number of workplace fatalities and injuries among migrant domestic workers (MDWs) arising from high-rise cleaning of windows; and (b) whether safety measures need to be stepped up to prevent such accidents from happening.
18 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the current rules on household window cleaning by migrant domestic workers (MDWs) are adequate; and (b) whether the Ministry will (i) mandate employer safety briefings at the work-permit issuance and renewal of their MDWs and (ii) expand confidential mental-health support and rest-day protections for MDWs with multilingual helplines.
Dr Tan See Leng: The safety requirements for migrant domestic workers (MDWs) cleaning windows are prescribed under the Employment of Foreign Manpower (Work Passes) Regulations 2012, Fourth Schedule. Employers are not permitted to allow MDWs to clean the exterior surface of any window that is not fitted with a grille that is locked at all times during cleaning and without adult supervision.
Employers who breach these requirements can be fined up to $10,000 and/or imprisoned for up to 12 months. They may also be barred from employing an MDW.
All first-time employers and MDWs are required to attend mandatory orientation programmes prior to the start of employment, that cover essential safety practices, including window cleaning. Employers are required to sign a safety agreement with their MDWs to ensure that they would comply with the Ministry of Manpower's (MOM’s) restrictions on cleaning the exterior of windowpanes. MOM also disseminates reminders to employers on safe work environments for MDWs.
Over the past 10 years, MOM took enforcement actions against six employers whose negligence led to their MDWs falling from height. Over the same period, MOM took enforcement actions against an average of 15 employers each year for failing to comply with safety standards for window cleaning by MDWs. We will continue to monitor such incidents and step up education and enforcement if necessary.
MOM also has a suite of measures in place to support MDWs who need assistance including for mental health or advice on rest day entitlements. They can contact helplines operated by MOM and non-governmental organisations, such as Centre for Domestic Employees, for support in their native languages.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Track Social Isolation and Improvements in Quality of Life and Healthspan","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"21 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health regarding Age Well SG (a) what measures are used to track improvements in quality of life and healthspan; (b) how social isolation is measured; and (c) what objective targets or benchmarks are used to assess progress in reducing social isolation and enhancing overall well-being among seniors.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: It is not straightforward to track the impact of national preventive health programmes like Age Well SG. Operationally, we can monitor attendance and outreach numbers. Long term, the Ministry of Health monitors indicators such as frailty prevalence, chronic disease prevalence and health-adjusted life expectancy. In time, we also expect academics to conduct research on the impact of these projects.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Discrepancy between Amount Budgeted for Voucher Schemes and Actual Amount Disbursed","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance for each of the fiscal years 2019 to 2024, what was the discrepancy between the amount budgeted for nationwide vouchers, for example, CDC, Climate, SG60, and the amount eventually disbursed.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The voucher schemes introduced by the Government over the past few years serve different policy objectives.
To assess the take-up of our voucher schemes, it is more meaningful to look at the overall utilisation of the schemes across their validity periods, rather than the budget utilisation for each Financial Year. The overall utilisation varies from 23% for the Climate Friendly Households Programme Vouchers in Phase 1, 56% for the SingapoRediscovers Vouchers, to over 90% for Community Development Council Vouchers issued up to 2024. SG60 vouchers were only issued this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Guidelines for Employers to Reduce \"Ghost Job\" Postings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry accounts for ghost jobs, referring to job postings that do not exist or that companies do not intend to fill immediately, in its labour data reports; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider releasing guidelines to encourage employers to reduce ghost jobs to build trust and support with jobseekers during the hiring process.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower takes care to ensure that our labour market statistics obtained from employer surveys are robust. All reported vacancies undergo stringent validation, including cross-checks against other data sources, such as MyCareersFuture postings, to confirm that the vacancies are genuine and tied to actual hiring activity. We follow up directly with employers if, for example, vacancies in their companies rise sharply without corresponding hires, or if the same positions are repeatedly reported every quarter without being filled.
These measures improve our data quality and ensure that the statistics we publish reliably reflect actual labour demand. This is reflected in broader hiring trends, where sectors with higher professional, manager, executive and technician (PMET) vacancies have also seen strong growth in resident PMET employment.
We recognise that employers may publish multiple postings across different job portals to maximise chances of securing a suitable candidate. Such practices are part of normal recruitment efforts and do not necessarily indicate fictitious openings. We are continually enhancing job search features on the MyCareersFuture portal such as introducing filters to help jobseekers identify more responsive employers and will continue to engage with employers to encourage responsible posting practices.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of \"No Smoking Zone\" in Orchard Road","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Ms Lee Hui Ying asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) when has the most recent survey on the effectiveness of the Orchard Road No Smoking Zone been conducted since the initial survey in July 2019; (b) what have been the findings from this recent survey; and (c) whether there has been a further reduction in feedback about smoking since 2021, and if so, what is the percentage reduction.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The National Environment Agency (NEA) has not conducted any further surveys on the Orchard Road No Smoking Zone (ORNSZ) since the perception survey in July 2019 after the ORNSZ was newly designated. Discounting 2021, when safe distancing measures were in place, NEA observed that feedback on smoking cases in the ORNSZ remained stable between 2022 and 2024, averaging fewer than 30 cases per month.
When compared to the overall volume of feedback NEA receives on smoking in prohibited places, feedback on cases in the ORNSZ is relatively low, making up less than 2%. NEA will continue to monitor and assess the effectiveness of ORNSZ.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tackling Risk of Agentic AI Capable of Autonomous Actions and Unforeseen Emergent Behaviours","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information regarding the risk of agentic AI capable of autonomous actions and unforeseen emergent behaviours (a) what is the Government’s specific plan to regulate these high-risk capabilities; and (b) whether this plan will include legislative empowerment to govern both AI actions and the content that AI generates.
Mrs Josephine Teo: In our current artificial intelligence (AI) governance approach, many AI risks are covered by broad legislation such as the Personal Data Protection Act, the Workplace Fairness Act and the Broadcasting Act, and sector-specific guidelines in the healthcare, finance and legal sectors. For specific risks, there are also targeted interventions, for example, Elections (Integrity of Online Advertising) (Amendment) Act, and the upcoming Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Bill.
Human and organisational accountability is central to Singapore’s AI governance approach. The Government’s Model AI Governance Framework sets out guidelines for AI systems to be explainable, transparent and fair. Organisations deploying AI should establish clear governance structures with designated oversight roles. They should ensure meaningful human accountability in AI-augmented decision-making. Organisations should also implement risk management processes to monitor and mitigate risks, such as algorithmic bias.
Agentic AI presents new opportunities and risks. These systems can execute actions, interact with external systems and adapt their behaviour with reduced human oversight. Our response focuses on two areas.
First, we recognise that many risks arising from agentic AI are extensions of existing challenges. Existing guidelines and regulations, including risk management processes and oversight, apply to agentic AI systems. The principle of maintaining human accountability and putting in place sufficient controls and guardrails also applies. In addition, our long-standing efforts to strengthen data protection, cybersecurity and resilience help protect the systems that AI agents interact with. We are reviewing how to adapt and strengthen these frameworks and systems to account for the increased autonomy of agentic systems, while monitoring international developments in this emerging field.
Second, we are developing capabilities to go beyond existing frameworks and approaches. We are running trials and experiments to stay abreast of the evolving technology and to understand what it takes to implement agentic systems responsibly. For example, the Government Technology Agency of Singapore has been experimenting with agentic AI in public sector use cases. We are doing this with care. This approach will deepen our understanding of how to interact with these systems, build confidence and harness their value for the public good.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Admission Requirements and Faculty Profile for Singapore College of Islamic Studies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim asked the Acting Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) what will be the admission requirements for the Singapore College of Islamic Studies (SCIS); (b) what is the profile of its faculty; (c) what are some scholarships that SCIS plans to offer to better support students; and (d) how will the SCIS collaborate and partner with Muslim organisations.\n
Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Efforts to establish the Singapore College of Islamic Studies (SCIS) are underway. These are led by the Steering Committee, chaired by Mufti Dr Nazirudin Mohd Nasir. Such efforts include establishing the SCIS' admission criteria, developing its course curriculum, and appointing faculty and staff. Course fees and financial support for students, including scholarships, are also being determined.
The SCIS will partner closely with local and international institutions. For instance, it is partnering the Singapore University of Social Sciences for the Social Sciences pathway, and Dar al-Ifta in Egypt, Al-Qarawiyyin in Morocco and University of Jordan for the Islamic Studies pathway.
More details will be shared ahead of the first intake of students in 2028.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cases where Students Physically Assaulted Teachers or School Staff","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Education (a) in each year over the last five years, what is the number of cases where students have abused or physically assaulted teachers or school staff; and (b) what framework for preventive and corrective measures is being used in schools to address such behaviour.
Mr Desmond Lee: From time to time, teachers deal with inappropriate student behaviour including rudeness and defiance, which are addressed through established disciplinary processes. Of these incidents, cases involving physical abuse or assault of school staff remain rare. These cases may also include incidents where teachers are struck while intervening to break up fights between students or while managing students with Special Educational Needs.
Through Character and Citizenship Education, students learn pro-social behaviour and relationship management skills. These efforts help students develop appropriate behaviour and respect for others. Our school staff are also trained to de-escalate situations and prioritise the safety and well-being of all students and staff.
Verbal abuse and physical aggression towards teachers and school staff are serious disciplinary offences under school rules. When such incidents occur, schools will take strong disciplinary actions, including suspension and caning for boys. Where necessary, schools will file a police report, and perpetrators may face legal consequences. As part of corrective measures, schools also help students understand why their behaviour is inappropriate through counselling and work with both students and parents to rebuild respectful relationships.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Studying Potential Productivity Gains from AI Adoption and Translating Gains into Wage Growth for Non-senior Managerial Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry intends to study (i) potential productivity gains from artificial intelligence (AI) adoption and (ii) the extent to which AI-associated productivity gains could translate into wage growth for non-senior managerial workers.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Government is studying and will continue to study the extent to which AI can affect jobs and its potential impact on the labour market and productivity. Isolating the potential productivity gains and wage growth that are solely attributable to artificial intelligence adoption is challenging, as the technology and its effects on job tasks rapidly evolve. Additionally, the full benefits of AI adoption will take time to materialise.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increasing Day Activity Centre Subsidies for Single-income Households","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether Day Activity Centre subsidies can be increased for single-income households.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Subsidies for Day Activity Centres (DACs) are means-tested based on clients' per capita household income. They are progressive, to ensure that more subsidies are directed to the lower-income.
More families can also look forward to increased subsidies for long-term care services from July 2026, announced in the Ministry of Social and Family Development's Committee of Supply earlier this year.
Where possible, DAC operators may also provide further financial support to help families in financial need.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Advertisement Campaign Describing Obesity as Chronic Disease","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health with regard to a pharmaceutical company's campaign website and advertisements at One-North MRT station and other public locations stating that obesity is a chronic disease (a) whether the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) has received any feedback about the campaign; (b) whether the HSA has investigated it for contravention of any regulations; and (c) if so, can HSA share the findings.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Advertisements of medicines must comply with Health Sciences Authority's (HSA's) legislation. The advertisements should not contain information that may lead to the promotion of specific medicines. However, campaigns or materials intended for educating consumers on diseases or medical conditions are permissible as they serve a public health purpose, such as advertisements to encourage vaccination to prevent disease outbreaks, without naming any specific medicines.
As such, HSA did not identify any non-compliance with this said campaign on obesity. Consumers are advised to consult healthcare professionals if they need help in the management of obesity and related conditions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assurances that Singtel's Singapore Operations are not Exposed to Systemic Risks from Procedural Lapses following Network Failure at Australian Subsidiary Optus","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information following the major network failure at Singtel's Australian subsidiary Optus (a) what assurances has the Government sought from Singtel that its Singapore operations are not exposed to similar systemic risks from procedural lapses, especially with regard to contacting emergency services; and (b) whether the Ministry is satisfied that our critical telecommunications infrastructure remains resilient.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Singapore's 999 or 995 emergency calls are designed and set up differently than the 000 service in Australia. We thus do not experience the same challenges.
We take the continued availability of our telecommunication networks very seriously. Telecommunications service providers must meet resilience requirements. These include meeting minimum coverage and Quality of Service standards and conducting regular audits. Should a disruption occur, they are expected to expeditiously restore network services and undertake rectification measures to prevent re-occurrence. The incidents will also be investigated and firm enforcement action will be taken where necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support for Gifted Children Attending Classes at Local Universities ahead of Age Cohort","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Mr Lee Hong Chuang asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry has any existing schemes or plans to support exceptionally gifted children who may attend classes at local autonomous universities in terms of academic progression, social emotional development and access to appropriate educational resources.
Mr Desmond Lee: For students in our mainstream schools who have been identified as exceptionally gifted in specific subjects, the Ministry of Education works with schools to develop a personalised education plan with appropriate provisions and resources tailored to their abilities and needs.
If assessed to be ready both academically and socio-emotionally, exceptionally gifted students may attend classes or after-school programmes at higher grade levels to help them develop their talent in the specific area. In some cases, they receive guidance from expert mentors who provide advanced learning opportunities, such as specialised research in our autonomous universities (AUs).
For exceptionally gifted students who apply for admission to AUs at a younger age, their applications will be assessed on a case-by-case basis, whether they are academically and social-emotionally ready to go to university.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support for Trade Associations to Attract, Retain and Develop Secretariat Talent","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry what support programmes are available to help trade associations attract, retain and develop the secretariat talent needed to drive sector collaborations and implement key enabling policies.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Government is committed to helping our trade associations and chambers (TACs) strengthen their secretariat teams so as to increase the TACs' capacity and capabilities to serve their members.
The Trade Association Committee Transformation Centre, which is supported by Enterprise Singapore and run by the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry, provides shared secretariat services to assist the TACs' operational needs in areas like internationalisation, digitalisation, sustainability and advocacy. This support enables them to drive industry transformation projects more effectively.
Enterprise Singapore also collaborates with the Singapore Business Federation on programmes to develop the human capital of TACs. For example, the TAC Fellowship Programme for Leadership Development is an executive leadership training initiative that seeks to build a strong pipeline of next-generation TAC leaders. The programme has benefited 60 TAC professionals in the past three years. Another example is the TAC Knowledge Series, which comprises workshops to equip TAC professionals with the knowledge and skills to be more effective. Since 2024, over 210 secretariat members from more than 50 TACs have attended these workshops.
The Government also second officers to TACs to augment the bench strength of the TAC secretariat staff and enhance the TACs' efforts in implementing key Government policies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extending Central Kitchen Model Beyond Initial 13 Schools and Cost of Such Meals Compared to Cost under Traditional School Canteen Model","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry has plans to expand the central kitchen model beyond the initial 13 schools which will commence in January 2026; and (b) what are the factors that the Ministry will take into consideration in whether to expand this model.
42 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Education in respect of the central kitchen model that will be rolled out at 13 schools in January 2026 (a) whether the Ministry has studied the comparative costs of meals under the central kitchen model and traditional school canteen; and (b) whether there will be any financial assistance provided to students who require support. \n \n
Mr Desmond Lee: The Ministry of Education (MOE) will assess whether to expand the central kitchen model beyond the initial 13 schools based on the outcomes of the implementation in these schools.
Specifically, we will monitor closely the operational efficiency, food quality, cost-effectiveness and student satisfaction at these schools. We will refine the model as necessary based on lessons learnt from this initial phase.
In the short to medium term, the existing Individual Stallholder System will be the dominant canteen model and MOE will continue to support schools operating under this model. We will consider the central kitchen model for schools that face genuine difficulties in engaging canteen vendors or have the prospect of many empty stalls. Any expansion of the central kitchen model to more schools will depend on the schools' needs, readiness and interest.
The central kitchen operators are required to provide at least one full meal priced at no more than $2.70 in primary schools and $3.60 in secondary schools. These are comparable to the meal prices charged by individual stallholders.
Students from lower-income families receiving MOE Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS) will have their meals paid for. They will continue to receive school meal subsidies that pay for at least seven meals per school week for primary level and 10 meals per school week for secondary level. Students who need additional assistance, including those who are not eligible for MOE FAS, can approach their schools for school-based assistance.
MOE will continue to work with schools to ensure students are well-nourished and to keep the food options affordable. We also thank our many stallholders for their dedicated services in serving our students and staff through the years. For the affected stall holders, we will continue to facilitate them to work in other schools or with the incoming operator.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Child Development Account Funds Are Used to Meet Children's Legitimate Needs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in view of the Ministry's decision to disallow the use of Child Development Account (CDA) funds at optical shops and retail pharmacies from 1 January 2026, how will the Ministry ensure that children with legitimate needs will not consequently be deprived of the benefit of the CDA.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The discontinuation of Child Development Account (CDA) usage at retail pharmacies and optical shops follows audits that found a higher risk of misuse of CDA monies at these establishments.
Although CDA usage will be discontinued at retail pharmacies, this change does not affect pharmacy departments within healthcare institutions, such as hospitals and polyclinics. The CDA can still be used for medication, surgical products and supplements that are dispensed at healthcare institutions and general practitioners (GP) clinics that are registered as Baby Bonus Approved Institutions.
We will regularly review the CDA usage to ensure that it is relevant and can meet parents' needs for their child's development. In May this year, the Ministry of Social and Family Development expanded the scope of CDA use to cover preschool incidental charges to support the child’s participation in a broader range of developmental activities. This includes enrichment programmes, such as speech and drama, allowing preschoolers to fully tap on the learning opportunities offered by their preschools.
In addition to the CDA, parents can tap on other Government support schemes, such as the Baby Bonus Cash Gift and Child LifeSG Credits, to defray their child-raising costs. Lower-income families who require financial support can approach the Social Service Offices for assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expanding CareShield Life Coverage to More Persons under Age 30 or Permit Exceptional Coverage on Appeal","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Mr Foo Cexiang asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider expanding CareShield Life coverage to include more persons aged below 30 years, or permit exceptional coverage on appeal, depending on the unique circumstances of each case.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Under CareShield Life, policyholders pay premiums during their working years, for protection against severe disability, which occurs mostly at the older ages. Mandatory enrolment and coverage begin at age 30 as most Singaporeans would have started work by then and have MediSave savings to pay for their premiums.
If we extend enrolment and coverage to below 30 on appeal, it will lead to adverse selection where those who more likely to make claims are more likely to opt in. This means pushing up premiums for everyone else. There is a clear trade off, and such a move needs to be considered very carefully.
Young Singaporeans with disability requiring assistance to perform their activities of daily living, can access other Government schemes besides CareShield Life. These include the Home Caregiving Grant, as well as MediFund.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Publishing Guidelines on Tackling Bullying in Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry assesses there to be a robust legal regulatory framework in place that is sufficient to address incidents of bullying or violence in schools; and (b) whether the Ministry will publish its guidelines or regulations available to schools to tackle the problem for better understanding by the public.\n
Mr Desmond Lee: My response will address the questions on bullying raised by Member Ms He Ting Ru and related question from Member Mr Cai Yinzhou who filed an oral Parliamentary Question for a subsequent Sitting. I invite Mr Cai to seek clarifications if needed and thereafter withdraw the question for that Sitting.
The Ministry of Education works within Singapore's legal framework to address bullying in schools. Schools communicate rules and disciplinary frameworks to staff, parents and students through platforms, such as student handbooks, student briefings and parent engagement sessions. After establishing facts, schools impose disciplinary consequences and educate students to restore relationships and change their behaviours. Severe cases are reported to the Police.
When bullying incidents occur, schools engage parents or guardians to inform them about the facts of the incident, work with them on the safety plan and provide them with resources to support the children at home. When families have other more complex issues that may affect the children's behaviours in school, schools will support the student while referring the family to community agencies for appropriate support.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Accidents where Foreign Work Pass Holders are Involved","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs for each year from 2021 to date (a) how many road accidents have involved drivers who are foreign Work Pass holders; (b) what percentage of all road accidents do these represent; and (c) how many of these accidents involving foreign drivers were fatal.
Mr K Shanmugam: From 2021 to 2024, on average, there were 1,489 road accidents annually involving motorists who are foreign Work Pass holders, of which 15 on average were fatal. This constituted 22% of all road accidents and 13% of all fatal accidents during that period.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Landlords' Asymmetrical Advantage over SMEs in Negotiating Rent Hikes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Government has considered the negative impact of landlords' asymmetrical advantage in negotiating rent hikes during tenancy renewals against SME tenants, due to factors such as tenants' sunk costs from renovation, on SMEs' ability and willingness to grow their businesses and generate employment; and (b) if so, what mitigating measures has the Government considered.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Fair Tenancy Industry Committee's (FTIC's) Code of Conduct for Leasing of Retail Premises in Singapore details key leasing principles to facilitate fair and balanced lease negotiations between tenants and landlords. For example, it prohibits landlords from charging tenants a mark-up for electricity costs, or from including clauses that provide landlords with the discretion to switch to a rental pricing formula which results in higher rent during the lease term.
The Code is mandatory for all retail leases of one year or longer under the Lease Agreements for Retail Premises Act 2023.
The Government played a key role alongside industry to develop the Code. We will continue to work closely with FTIC to monitor industry practices and update the Code as needed to ensure lease negotiations are conducted in a fair and balanced way.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support for Youth Athletes Juggling Sporting and Academic Commitments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) how does the Ministry plan to enhance support for youth athletes juggling sporting and academic commitments; (b) how can the Ministry partner other agencies to better support youth athletes sitting for national examinations; (c) what enhanced measures will SportSG take to ensure national sports associations’ policies and decisions balance the holistic development of athletes' sporting and academic excellence.
Mr David Neo : Our student-athletes face the demanding challenge of juggling academic excellence with athletic pursuits. Our national high-performance sport (HPS) system provides student-athletes support to pursue sporting and academic aspirations.
Under the Sport Excellence (spex) programmes, the High Performance Sport Institute (HPSI) partners national sports associations (NSAs) to do long-term planning for student-athletes' competition, training and academic needs. HPSI provides our national athletes psychological and athlete life support, delivered through consultations and educational programmes by sports psychologists and athlete life managers. Such support aims to help athletes manage the pressures of balancing training, competition and academics.
Athletes in schools are also supported through partnerships between the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth, Sport Singapore and the Ministry of Education (MOE). Most times, national athletes do get exemptions from school activities and even examinations to attend to their national training and competition demands, and we will continue to work with MOE on this.
The Singapore Sports School (SSP) also plays a crucial role in our HPS system. It provides a dedicated high-performance developmental pathway for youth athletes to achieve both sporting excellence and their academic aspirations.
In the SSP, education is wrapped around sports, helping student-athletes maximise their training while balancing the demands of education. SSP collaborates closely with NSAs to ensure student-athletes are supported through athlete-friendly academic programming and practices, together with specialised sports coaching, sports science support, and international training and competition opportunities, to maximise their potential.
Talented athletes seeking to benefit from SSP's high-quality Daily Training Environment are afforded ongoing opportunities to join the school. At the secondary level, athletes can apply for a transfer from their existing schools as mid-stream applicants. At the post-secondary level, SSP also facilitates the entry by high-performing athletes into its programme, with support from their NSAs. We will continue to develop and strengthen sports as a viable career. We will enhance our support for athletes to balance their sporting aspirations alongside their academic and post sports career needs.
We introduced the spexEducation Undergraduate Scholarship last year, to provide greater assurance to our athletes for their undergraduate studies, whether during their sporting career or after they retire from active competition. In April this year, SSP and the six Autonomous Universities (AUs) signed a Memorandum of Understanding to enhance the AUs' athlete-friendly practices and strengthen support for carded student-athletes.
The Government is committed to working with partners to support student-athletes and parents in balancing their sporting and academic pursuits.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Alternative Entry Routes to Secondary Schools alongside PSLE","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Mr David Hoe asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will consider piloting alternative secondary school entry routes alongside PSLE such as through-train tracks, weighted school-based assessments and portfolio submissions.
Mr Desmond Lee: Over the years, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has introduced changes to our education system to strengthen the holistic development of students, reduce the over-emphasis on academic grades and nurture the joy of learning. This includes making changes to the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) scoring system to reduce the fine differentiation of results and recognise the student's level of achievement in a way that does not depend on how their peers have done. We also have the Direct School Admission, which is an alternative pathway for students to gain admission into secondary schools based on their interests, aptitude and potential in various talent areas beyond their performance at PSLE.
MOE has been carefully studying alternative school posting approaches such as a primary-to-secondary through-train model and weighed their benefits and challenges. Key considerations include whether these alternative approaches enable us to fairly and transparently post students to secondary schools, and if they serve as useful checkpoints to gauge our students' learning and right-site them to appropriate subject levels at the start of their secondary school education. We will continue to study options, including suggestions made by the Member, that can help us to achieve these objectives better.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Statistics for Childminding Pilot Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for Social and Family Development under the Early Childhood Development Agency childminding pilot scheme (a) what is the breakdown of infants cared for in childminders' homes and community premises respectively; and (b) out of the 160 families who have indicated interest to enrol in the next six months, what is the average waiting time for the families to be matched to a childminder.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Around 60% of infants enrolled under the Early Childhood Development Agency's (ECDA's) Childminding Pilot for Infants are cared for in the childminders' home, with the other 40% of infants in the two existing community premises. To meet demand from parents and childminders, ECDA will continue to work with operators to explore more community premises.
Operators work closely with parents to ensure that they are suitably matched to childminders, which can include interview sessions between parents and childminders and even visits to childminders' homes. Depending on when families require the service, as well as their needs and preferences, waiting time for a match generally ranges from a few days to a few months.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Long-term Impact of MOE Kindergarten Expansion on Economic Viability and Diversity of Kindergarten Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what assessment has the Ministry made of the long-term impact of MOE Kindergarten expansion on the economic viability and diversity of Singapore’s kindergarten sector; and (b) what is the current status of the Kindergarten Partner Operator scheme.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Government's priority is to ensure access to affordable and quality preschools to give every child a good start in life. Today, around nine in 10 Singaporean children aged three to six are enrolled in preschool.
The Ministry of Education (MOE) currently operates 56 MOE Kindergartens (MKs) and has plans to open 60 MKs by 2029 to supplement other Government-supported preschools. MKs have helped to uplift the preschool sector, by putting MOE's Nurturing Early Learners Framework into practice and sharing quality preschool teaching and learning practices with other preschool operators. MKs have also complemented sector efforts to support children from lower-income families, through priority enrolment as well as targeted attendance and learning support. Additionally, MKs have encouraged bilingualism from young by offering all three official Mother Tongue Languages.
The Government also regularly calibrates our policies to be responsive to changes in the preschool landscape. In 2019, we had shared our intent to expand the Partner Operator (POP) scheme to a small number of quality kindergartens, where they would have to meet conditions to ensure accessibility, affordability and quality of care and education for children. However, we have observed falling demand for half-day kindergarten services due to growing demand for full-day care with more dual-income families over the past five years. With the changing preschool landscape, ECDA's priority is to meet the growing demand for full-day childcare, including through the POP scheme. ECDA will therefore not be extending the POP scheme to kindergartens, as there are already sufficient kindergarten places for children, including affordable kindergarten services offered by Anchor Operator (AOP) or MKs. Parents who prefer half-day service may also opt for half-day childcare services offered by the childcare operators, including the AOP and POP childcare centres.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expanding Use of SG Culture Pass to Include Movie Screenings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"55 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth in light of declining cinema attendance, whether the Government will consider expanding the use of the SG Culture Pass to include movie screenings.
Mr David Neo: The SG Culture Pass programme was introduced on 1 September 2025. Its main objective is to enhance access of Singaporeans to local arts and heritage and to help local arts and heritage groups. Since 1 September 2025, over 400 programmes – including plays, concerts, heritage tours and workshops – have been put on the SG Culture Pass.
The Government would want to support local films as part of supporting local artists and local works. These are films that are written, directed or produced by Singaporeans. Therefore, the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) is in discussion with the Singapore International Film Festival, which takes place from end-November 2025, to include eligible local film programmes and activities in the Culture Pass programme.
MCCY will also discuss with cinema operators on the technical feasibility of bringing local films that are screened in cinemas onboard the SG Culture Pass.
We thank the community for their support for our local arts and culture sector.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Converting Dead Spaces Below Flyovers, Viaducts, MRT Tracks or Bridges into Space for Sporting Facilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth in view of more turbulent weather due to climate change which results in more hot days and frequent downpours, and to address the rising demand for sports facilities across Singapore, whether the Ministry has plans to explore converting more dead spaces below flyovers, viaducts, MRT tracks or bridges into multi-purpose sporting facilities.
Mr David Neo: Sport Singapore (SportSG) plans and develops various sports facilities, such as dedicated sport centres, sports facilities in integrated developments in the community and Sport-in-Precinct (SIP) facilities. Majority of these facilities include sheltered multi-purpose courts, which can be used in the event of inclement weather.
SportSG makes use of underutilised spaces. For example, the CTE viaduct space in Jalan Bukit Merah has been transformed into a touch tennis court, while the space under Gali Batu Flyover will be used for futsal, pickleball courts and a fitness corner. Rooftops of multi-storey car parks are also being repurposed as recreational spaces, such as the upcoming SIP facility in Dover Crescent.
SportSG will continue to work with other agencies to explore more opportunities to better utilise such spaces.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Using Vehicular Dimensions Instead of Vehicular Weight in Defining \"Heavy Vehicle\" under Vehicle Parking Certificate Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Acting Minister for Transport in respect of the Vehicle Parking Certificate (VPC) scheme (a) what are the policy considerations underpinning the use of vehicular weight in defining heavy vehicles; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider using vehicular dimensions to determine VPC requirements, as large-sized vehicles that are otherwise not heavy vehicles cannot fit into normal-sized parking lots.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Commercial vehicles, in particular goods vehicles, are categorised by Maximum Laden Weight (MLW) as vehicles that are loaded beyond their designated weight are less able to steer effectively at road bends and stop quickly during an emergency. Building owners may also be concerned about the structural capacity of the carparks. Numerous countries around the world adopt this approach, including the United Kingdom and European Union member states.
As vehicles with higher MLWs are often large and could cause road safety risks if parked indiscriminately, they require vehicle parking certificate to ensure that owners of these heavy vehicles have a designated overnight parking space between 12.00 am and 6.00 am.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enforcement Efforts to Ensure Heavy Vehicles are Parked in Designated Spaces","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) what enforcement efforts has the Ministry undertaken to ensure that heavy vehicles are parked in their Vehicle Parking Certificate (VPC) designated parking spaces; and (b) what is the annual breakdown of such enforcement cases over the past five years.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Under the Vehicle Parking Certificate (VPC) Scheme, heavy vehicles are required to secure a parking lot in an authorised Heavy Vehicle Park. Between 12.00 am and 6.00 am, heavy vehicles must be parked in designated parking lots suitable for heavy vehicles when not in use.
The Land Transport Authority has been taking enforcement action against heavy vehicles found parked at non-designated locations, based on feedback received and through patrols. The number of Notices of Offence issued against heavy vehicles parking at non-designated parking spaces average about 1,300 annually over 2020 to 2024.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Applications for Licence to Operate Heavy Vehicle Parking Place","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Acting Minister for Transport for each year over the past three years, (a) what is the number of new applications for a licence to operate a heavy vehicle parking place; and (b) the mean and median processing time for such applications.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Land Transport Authority received an average about 700 new applications annually to operate private Heavy Vehicle Parks over 2022 to 2024. These are not applications for heavy vehicle parking lots, but licences to operate these parking spaces. There are about 2,100 operators currently. Vehicle Parking Certificates are issued by Heavy Vehicle Park operators.
The mean and median processing time for Heavy Vehicle Park applications over the past three years was about two days.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cases of Jaywalking and Fatal Accidents Related to Jaywalking","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"60 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) in the past year, how many cases of jaywalking have been detected; (b) whether the number of cases has been increasing; (c) how many fatal accidents are related to jaywalking; and (d) whether there are plans to impose stiffer penalties and improve educational campaigns to deter jaywalking.
Mr K Shanmugam: In the first half of 2025, the Traffic Police (TP) dealt with about 730 cases of jaywalking, a 4% increase compared to the same period last year. There were nine fatal accidents involving pedestrians who jaywalked in the first half of 2025, compared to seven in the same period last year. Between January 2024 and September 2025, TP conducted 25 elderly-focused road safety events and about 640 pedestrian-related ones, reaching more than 100,000 people. These outreach events emphasise the importance of using designated crossing points, staying alert to traffic conditions and avoiding distractions, such as mobile devices, while crossing the road.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Private Agencies Contracted for E-vape Enforcement Activities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"63 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what is the number of private enforcement agencies that Health Sciences Authority (HSA) subcontracts for e-vaporiser enforcement activities; (b) what is the total number of staff in those agencies; and (c) in view of the harsher stance on e-vaporisers, whether there are plans for the Police to conduct e-vaporiser enforcement instead of HSA and its subcontractors.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Enforcement against e-vaporisers offences is a whole-of-Government effort. Today, over 10,000 officers from various agencies, including the Singapore Police Force, are involved in enforcement against e-vaporisers. In addition, the Health Sciences Authority contracts about 100 staff from an external enforcement vendor to reinforce its own team for e-vaporiser enforcement activities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Protocols and Training for Mosque Personnel to Handle and Report Suspicious Packages","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Acting Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs in light of recent incidents of meat parcels sent to local mosques, whether there are established protocols and training for mosque personnel to handle and report suspicious or hazardous packages.
Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: The Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) has clear safety protocols in place for all mosque personnel, including staff and volunteers. When suspicious or hazardous packages are identified in mosques, staff are to call the Police, support investigations by the relevant authorities, and take actions to ensure the safety of the public. They are also to provide prompt and accurate updates to congregants and the public.
Mosque personnel receive regular training on these protocols.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Self-employed Person Income Relief Scheme Recipients who Remain Subjected to Payout Clawback","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"65 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether an update can be provided on the number of Self-Employed Person Income Relief Scheme (SIRS) recipients who remain subject to payout clawback; (b) what are the reasons for such uncompleted refunds of SIRS payouts; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider providing a one-time waiver or financial support for such recipients who demonstrate that they are unable to refund their SIRS payouts.
Dr Tan See Leng: Around 700 ineligible recipients of the Self-Employed Person Income Relief Scheme (SIRS) remain subject to clawback.
The processing of these refunds is still ongoing for a few reasons. First, some recipients have not yet responded to Ministry of Manpower's (MOM's) requests for repayment. Second, some recipients have appealed for assistance in making the repayment, which MOM is in the process of assessing. Third, some recipients have been given more time to refund, through instalments or extended deadlines.
For those who experience difficulties in making repayments, MOM considers the circumstances of each individual case upon appeal.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support Provided to Swedish Car Maker for R&D Office in Singapore and Clawback Penalties Imposed following Closure Eight Months After Launch","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"66 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what are the various forms of financial and non-financial support provided by the Economic Development Board for the establishment of a Swedish car R&D office in Singapore; and (b) whether there are clawback provisions and penalties imposed on the company for the closure eight months after its launch.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Companies that receive support from the Government must meet certain economic outcomes, such as job creation and local employment, business spending or fixed asset investment. The Government has mechanisms to claw back subsidies from companies that fail to meet these outcomes.
We are unable to share specific details of individual companies due to commercial sensitivities and confidentiality requirements.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarifying Tax Treatment of Quasi-structural Assets","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"67 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in light of recent adverse ruling involving capital allowance claims for quasi-structural assets such as cement silos and airport runways, whether the Ministry plans to review or clarify the tax treatment of such assets given their importance to Singapore’s operational infrastructure and impact on investment competitiveness.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Ministry of Finance regularly reviews and updates our tax policies to ensure they remain relevant. Our reviews will take into account evolving business needs, jurisprudence and other factors relevant to our economic objectives.
The rulings referred to by the Member have provided further clarity on the assets that are not eligible for capital allowance. The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore will update its e-Tax Guide to reflect the clarifications.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expansion of \"Relevant Individuals\" under Section 18(1)(a) of CPF Act 1953 to Include Uncles and Aunts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"
70 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Manpower whether the definition of \"relevant individuals\" who may benefit from voluntary transfers of CPF funds under section 18(1)(a) of the Central Provident Fund Act 1953 can be expanded to include uncles and aunts, so that seniors who are without children may benefit.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Central Provident Fund (CPF) system is designed to primarily provide for and safeguard an individual's retirement adequacy. Nonetheless, CPF members have the flexibility to make voluntary CPF transfers to immediate family members, such as their spouse, parents, grandparents, siblings, parents-in-law and grandparents-in-law. Limiting CPF transfers to immediate family members strikes a balance between encouraging members to support their closest dependents whilst ensuring that they do not compromise their own retirement adequacy.
There are existing flexibilities within the CPF system for members to provide support to their extended family members, including uncles and aunts. Members can make cash top-ups to their extended family members' CPF accounts. Should their extended family members be eligible for the Matched Retirement Savings Scheme, their extended family members will benefit from the dollar-for-dollar matching grant in addition to the cash top-ups.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress on Installation of EV Chargers in HDB Car Parks and Public Spaces","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"71 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether an update can be provided on the implementation status for the roll-out of electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure in public spaces; and (b) whether there are plans to accelerate the roll-out as more EVs are being adopted in Singapore.
72 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether the installation of electric vehicle (EV) chargers in public car parks managed by HDB is keeping up with Singaporeans’ increased rate of EV adoption; and (b) whether there are plans to ramp up installations of EV chargers in HDB car parks going forward.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: There are currently more than 25,000 electric vehicle (EV) charging points island-wide, of which close to half are publicly accessible. We are on track to achieve our earlier target of deploying 60,000 charging points by 2030, in tandem with EV adoption.
For Housing Housing and Development Board (HDB) car parks, there are more than 7,500 charging points installed across about 85% of HDB car parks today. We are on track to provide every HDB resident with convenient access to an EV charger by the end of this year, keeping pace with the progress of EV adoption.
The Land Transport Authority tracks the usage of these chargers. We will continue to keep up with the latest charging technology and work with the community and EV charging operators to scale up deployment of EV chargers in car parks with high charging demand, electrical capacity permitting.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Differentiated Discount Rate for Travel during Peak and Off-peak Periods for PWD Concession Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"73 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Acting Minister for Transport whether the Government will consider implementing a differentiated discount rate for travel during peak and off-peak periods for the existing Persons With Disabilities (PWD) concession scheme.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Today, persons with disabilities enjoy up to 55% off adult per-journey fares. Like all commuters, if they travel before 7.45 am on weekdays, they can save an additional 50 cents on the Mass Rapid Transit. They can also purchase monthly concession passes currently priced at $58 for unlimited travel on train and basic bus services.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Estate Upgrading Programme for Jalan Naung and Realty Park Private Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"74 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development (a) following the Ministry's announcement in February 2025, when is the Estate Upgrading Programme for Jalan Naung and Realty Park private estates expected to commence within the next five years; and (b) what specific works will be undertaken for these estates.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Estate Upgrading Programme (EUP) for Jalan Naung and Realty Park Estate is targeted to commence by the middle of 2026, starting with the design and planning of the project. The Building and Construction Authority will call a tender by end-2025 to appoint the consultants. Enhancements under the EUP may include (a) recreational spaces such as community gardens, playgrounds and fitness corners; (b) features to improve connectivity and accessibility such as footpaths, barrier-free ramps and wayfinding markers; and (c) estate markers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Employers Issued Warnings or Made to Attend Mandatory Workshops due to Rejection of FWA Request without Adequate Justification","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"75 Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how many employers who reject Flexible Work Arrangement requests without adequate justification have been issued warnings and or made to attend mandatory workshops since December 2024; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider stronger enforcement measures to ensure meaningful employer consideration of such requests.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Member may refer to the written reply to Parliamentary Question No 59 for the Sitting on 22 September 2025. [Please refer to \"Acceptance and Rejection Rates for Flexible Work Arrangement Requests, and Top Three Reasons for Rejecting\", Official Report, 22 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 2, Written Answers to Questions section.]
Employers who face challenges implementing the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests, or employees who feel that their flexible work arrangement requests are not properly considered, may approach the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices for assistance.
76 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what assessment has been made of the effectiveness of existing safety campaigns for delivery riders; (b) whether the Ministry will require platforms to share data to identify high-risk riding behaviours; and (c) how accountability and minimum safety training standards will be enforced when accidents involving delivery riders and pedestrians occur.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Traffic Police (TP) does not track data on accidents involving delivery riders, but this is a group of interest as they spend a lot of time on our roads.
TP will consider engaging the platform companies to get their data to help us better understand the driving or riding habits of their workers. We will then consider if we need additional interventions or campaigns, in addition to TP, the Singapore Road Safety Council and Land Transport Authority's existing public education and engagement efforts.
When traffic accidents involving injury occur, TP and the Ministry of Manpower may investigate and enforce against errant parties under the Road Traffic Act and Workplace Safety and Health Act respectively. The laws and penalties apply to all road users.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Pegging Remuneration of Rail Operators' Key Executives to Rail Performance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"77 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry will consider requiring the rail operators to peg the remuneration of their key executives to rail performance; and (b) if not, why not.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Government holds rail operators accountable for meeting service and reliability standards, and penalises them for lapses that lead to disruptions. Operators that do not meet reliability targets will also not receive payments under the relevant incentive schemes.
Our rail operators are commercial entities. Setting remuneration that incentivises their employees to achieve desired outcomes, including rail reliability, is the responsibility of their boards and management.
78 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) how many People's Association grassroots leaders (GRLs) in the last 10 years have utilised their privileges under Phase 2B of the Primary 1 registration process to apply for priority registration of their children; (b) how many GRLs have been successful (i) with ballot and (ii) without ballot; and (c) how many GRLs were unsuccessful.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mr Speaker, I am answering in my capacity as the Minister charged with the responsibility for the People's Association (PA). Under the Primary 1 (P1) Registration Framework, current serving committee members of the Residents' Network (RN), Residents' Committee (RC), Neighbourhood Committee (NC), Citizen's Consultative Committee (CCC), Community Club Management Committee (CCMC) and the Community Development Council (CDC) are eligible to register their child under Phase 2B as active community leaders in schools within two kilometres of their residence. This is not exclusive to grassroots leaders (GRLs) and is also extended to other volunteers who have served or are connected to the school in one way or another.
To qualify as active community leaders, PA requires GRLs to serve actively in these Committees for at least two years continuously prior to the P1 registration exercise. GRLs who meet the qualifying criteria may submit their applications to PA for assessment and endorsement.
On average, less than 1.5% of GRLs seek to register their child under Phase 2B yearly and out of this pool, not all are successful. The outcome still depends on factors, such as demand and vacancies, which can vary year to year. Regardless of the outcome, many volunteers continue serving in the grassroots.
PA does not have the data on the number of GRLs who have been successful or unsuccessful in registering their child with ballot and without ballot.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criteria for Allocating and Prioritising Admission to ECDA's Inclusive Support Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"79 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what are the criteria used to allocate and prioritise places for children applying for admission to the Early Childhood Development Agency's Inclusive Support Programme; (b) whether children who are Singapore Citizens will be given priority when there are limited places; and (c) what are the Ministry's plans to ensure an even spread of the additional 600 places in Singapore, if any.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Children with possible developmental needs are assessed by a paediatrician to determine the level of Early Intervention (EI) support the child needs and for the child to be referred to suitable EI programmes. The Inclusive Support Programme (InSP) serves children who require medium levels of EI support and who are suited to receive EI in a preschool group setting. The placement of a child into InSP depends on factors, such as whether the InSP preschool can support the needs of the child, matching of available class types to the child's individual needs and parents' preferred location. As we are in the early stages of scaling InSP, we will continue to assess demand for the programme to ensure a healthy supply of places. Regardless, only Singaporeans and Permanent Residents are eligible for InSP places.
About 600 new InSP places will be progressively added from 2026 onwards, spread over 15 to 20 preschools. This is in addition to the existing six preschools from the pilot. We will take into account the projected demand for EI services to guide the location of the new InSP places.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Permanent Residents with More than 180 Days of Stay Outside Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"80 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs what is the number and percentage of Permanent Residents who have been (i) outside Singapore for more than 180 days as of 1 October 2025 and (ii) had a total period of stay of less than 183 days in 2024.
Mr K Shanmugam: As of end September 2025, there were about 42,000 Permanent Residents (PRs) who have been outside of Singapore for a continuous period of more than 180 days. This is about 8% of the total PR population.
The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority does not track the number of PRs who have been in Singapore for fewer than 183 days, or any number of days for that matter, in any given period.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Cases Related to Offence of Deliberately Wounding Racial Feelings in Last Two Years and Strengthening Inter-faith Harmony following Such Incidents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"81 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many cases of the offence of deliberately wounding racial feelings have there been in each of the last two years; (b) whether there are observable trends and risks, including those relating to incidents and developments overseas; and (c) whether there are plans to introduce more punitive measures against offenders to serve as a stronger deterrent.
82 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether existing laws such as the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act 1990 and related legislation are adequate to address new forms of provocation; and (b) how the Ministry works with community partners to build trust and strengthen inter-faith harmony in the wake of such incidents.
Mr K Shanmugam: My reply will also address Mr Zhulkarnain's question for tomorrow's sitting, on measures to deter incidents that may provoke racial or religious disharmony. [Please refer to \"Measures to Detect and Deter Incidents That May Provoke Racial or Religous Disharmony\", Official Report, 15 October 2025, Vol 96, Issue 8, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
I believe Members have asked their questions with the Al-Istiqamah Mosque incident in mind. This is the case where a 61-year-old Chinese man was charged in court on 27 September 2025 for allegedly having sent pieces of pork by mail to several mosques.
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) takes a very serious view of incidents that threaten Singapore's racial or religious harmony. We have a robust legal framework that sets clear boundaries of unacceptable conduct. This includes the Penal Code, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act. If we receive specific information on threats linked to places of worship, the Police will take appropriate action, including investigations and stepping up security measures such as the frequency of patrols in the vicinity of the place of worship.
In the last two years, the Police had investigated into about 25 cases of race- and religion-related offences annually.
Upstream, as part of the SGSecure movement, the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth works with the Police and other partners to strengthen religious organisations' crisis response capabilities. At the community level, the Police and Singapore Civil Defence Force also work with the Safety and Security Watch Group, which includes religious organisations to conduct security surveys, share best practices and deliver training on building safety and security awareness.
That said, the social harmony we enjoy today is a result of not just our strict laws and enforcement, but also our policies and programmes to expand the common space. For instance, the Racial and Religious Harmony Circles strengthen intercultural and inter-religious understanding in our communities through community celebrations, dialogues and learning journeys. Following the Al-Istiqamah Mosque incident, leaders of various faith communities made statements condemning the incident and expressing solidarity with the Muslim community. Members of the Serangoon Harmony Circle gathered to show support for their Muslim neighbours. In a statement, they reminded us that “an attack on one religion is an attack on us all”.
It should not be taken for granted, and we must continue to work at it; that our various communities come together, and stand shoulder to shoulder, whenever one of us faces problems, gives us a measure of confidence in the resilience of our society to threats to our racial and religious harmony.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Standardising School Dismissal Notification and Safety Procedures when Timing Deviates from Norm","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"83 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education whether schools will (i) standardise dismissal-safety procedures including same-day exception alerts to parents via Parents Gateway when a primary pupil’s after-school movement deviates from normal arrangement and (ii) expand supervised safe spaces for pupils awaiting caregivers.
Mr Desmond Lee: All primary schools prioritise student safety in their dismissal procedures. This includes communicating standard dismissal timings with parents and caregivers and ensuring adequate safe places for children who are waiting for pick-up. Schools also give advance notice to parents via Parents Gateway if there is any change to school dismissal timing. Students who need to leave school before the official dismissal time will need the school's permission and their parents will also be informed.
Parents should inform the school or their child's form teacher if they are unable to pick up their child as scheduled. Students who are not picked up will remain under supervised care until the revised pick-up arrangements are confirmed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore's Support of Newly Announced Gaza Peace Plan by US","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"85 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether Singapore will support the newly announced Gaza peace plan by the US that proposes the establishment of an international stabilisation force and a monitored ceasefire.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: My reply will also address related questions from Mr Ang Wei Neng, Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim, Dr Hamid Razak1 and Mr Gerald Giam2 for subsequent Sittings.
Singapore had welcomed the agreement on 9 October 2025 by Israel and Hamas on the first phase of the peace plan proposed by the Trump administration. This first phase is now being implemented. This is a significant welcome development for the sake of peace. We urge all parties to make further progress towards resolving outstanding issues in subsequent phases. It is vital to create the right conditions which would allow for the reconstruction of Gaza, bring hope to the people of Gaza, and enhance stability in the Middle East.
Singapore will continue to provide humanitarian assistance and support the Palestinian Authority, especially through capacity building programmes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) what were the key considerations that led Singapore to promptly endorse the 20-point peace plan for Gaza; and (b) how does Singapore’s endorsement align with its broader foreign policy principles of neutrality, respect for international law and support for a two-state solution.","2 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) whether the Government agrees with the Trump peace plan for Gaza; (b) whether Singapore will seek a seat on the proposed \"Board of Peace\"; and (c) what unique contribution Singapore can offer to such a body."],"footNoteQuestions":["85"],"questionNo":"85"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Actions against Senior Management and Technical Personnel for Lapses Reported by Transport Safety Investigation Bureau for September 2024 Train Incident","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"86 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Acting Minister for Transport in light of the report of the Transport Safety Investigation Bureau on the SMRT train fault in September 2024 finding that SMRT extended the overhaul interval of the affected train without a detailed engineering risk assessment, what specific actions have been taken against the senior management and technical personnel responsible for these lapses.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The sole objective of the Transport Safety Investigation Bureau's (TSIB's) rail safety investigations is the prevention of rail accidents and incidents. The safety investigations do not seek to apportion blame or liability.
For the September 2024 East-West Line disruption, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) imposed a financial penalty of $2.4 million on SMRT for breach of licence under the Rapid Transit Systems Act. LTA also issued a direction to SMRT to invest a minimum of $600,000 to strengthen its capabilities and address areas of improvement from the incident so as to improve service reliability for commuters.
As neither TSIB nor LTA's investigations found any criminal wrongdoing on the part of any individual, there are no grounds for Government to take further action against specific individuals. LTA does not interfere in human resource decisions that rail operators may take in response to our investigation findings.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"University Students Taking On Multiple Internships Simultaneously","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"87 Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Minister for Education in each of the last three years (a) what proportion of students enrolled in autonomous universities have taken on (i) internships and (ii) multiple internships simultaneously; (b) what has been the average number of internships per student who participated in internship programmes; (c) what has been the average internship duration; and (d) what proportion of these internships have been unpaid.
Mr Desmond Lee: Almost all undergraduate courses in our autonomous universities (AUs) require the completion of an internship for graduation. Credit-bearing internships may take between two weeks to 12 months, depending on the institution and course.
Based on the 2024 AU Graduate Employment Survey, about nine in 10 graduates participated in at least one internship during their course of study. This is comparable to that of 2022 and 2023. Among those who participated in internships, the average number of internships completed per graduate has remained roughly stable at around two in the last three years.
The Ministry of Education and the AUs do not track the number of students taking multiple internships simultaneously or unpaid internships. The AUs have provided feedback that such cases are uncommon.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Key Factors Contributing to Lapses Reported in AGO Report in Recent Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"89 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance with respect to the Auditor-General’s Office annual audit reports (a) what key factors or trends have contributed to significant lapses and irregularities in recent years; (b) what challenges arise in overhauling systems to prevent recurrences; and (c) how does the Government plan to communicate rectifications to assure Singaporeans and strengthen public trust.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The auditing and reporting process undertaken by the Auditor-General's Office (AGO) is an integral part of our system to ensure transparency and accountability in the use of public funds.
Our overall system is robust. However, it should be borne in mind that we are operating in a rapidly changing operating environment with increasing scale and complexity of Government operations. With a high volume of transactions handled across the Public Service and multiple IT systems, human errors and process gaps will inevitably occur from time to time. Regardless, we are committed to continually improve how we operate.
The Government takes all observations in the AGO report seriously. In the event any gaps or lapses are identified, we will work to rectify the same, strengthen governance and keep up with changes. Changes are effected through cross-agency coordination, change management and staff adoption. We emphasise professional training and development to help public officers build capability in both technical skills and judgement in the conduct of their work and put in place robust processes and controls.
The Auditor-General's reports highlight issues alongside responses and remedial actions by agencies across domains and sectors. The Government may also issue public statements as appropriate depending on the nature and extent of the issue. The Auditor-General's independent and transparent reporting process, followed by timely and constructive agencies' responses, enhances accountability and helps uphold public trust.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expansion of Drug Rehabilitation Centre and Community Rehabilitation Centre Capacity if Etomidate-related Admissions Rise","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"90 Mr Gabriel Lam asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what expansion or upgrading plans exist to increase Drug Rehabilitation Centre and Community Rehabilitation Centre capacity if etomidate-related admissions rise, if any; (b) whether staffing and rehabilitation programmes will be scaled to meet demand; and (c) how aftercare and community reintegration support will be enhanced to prevent bottlenecks and sustain rehabilitation outcomes.
91 Mr Gabriel Lam asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the current holding capacity of Drug Rehabilitation Centres (DRC) and Community Rehabilitation Centres (CRC); (b) how have utilisation and admission numbers trended over the past five years; and (c) how is the classification of etomidate under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 projected to affect DRC and CRC admissions.
Mr K Shanmugam: From 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2024, there has been a general increase in Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC) and Community Rehabilitation Centre (CRC) admissions. During this period, an annual average of 2,000 inmates and 35 inmates were admitted to the DRC and CRC respectively. The DRC is currently operating at about 76% of its capacity, and the CRC at about 28%.
Etomidate was listed as a Class C controlled drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 from 1 September 2025. Those who are caught for etomidate consumption for the third or subsequent time will be admitted to the DRC for treatment and rehabilitation if they are 16 years of age or older. As of 1 October 2025, no one has been admitted to the DRC for etomidate abuse.
The Singapore Prison Service monitors the capacity utilisation of its institutions closely and will ensure that it has sufficient capacity and resources to accommodate new admissions. This includes resourcing for its in-house rehabilitation programmes, such as psychology-based correctional programmes, family programmes, pro-social support programmes and religious counselling.
Following their release, DRC inmates who are etomidate abusers will undergo a supervision regime in the community, overseen by the Health Sciences Authority. The Ministry of Health closely monitors admissions into the regime and its capacity utilisation, and works with community partners to ensure that it can continue to deliver quality reintegration and rehabilitation support.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Transfer of Unused Balances in Child Development Account to Edusave Account Upon Child's Entry into Primary School","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"92 Mr Victor Lye asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Ministry will allow the transfer of unused balances in the Child Development Account (CDA) into the child's Edusave Account under the Ministry of Education once a child enters primary school, so that these funds may continue to support educational needs beyond the preschool years.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): The Child Development Account (CDA) and Edusave Account serve different purposes.
The Edusave scheme was established in 1993 to support the education of Singaporean students in primary and secondary school. Students can use their Edusave funds to pay for miscellaneous fees, approved school enrichment programmes and purchase of learning devices at secondary and pre-university levels. The Government provides annual contributions and ad hoc top-ups to Edusave. Parents who require additional financial support for educational expenses may apply for financial assistance from the Ministry of Education.
The CDA was established in 2001 as a special co-savings account to support parents in managing the cost of raising their children. CDA monies can be used for preschool and childcare expenses, and for healthcare or developmental needs at Baby Bonus-approved institutions, up till the time the child turns 12. As such, transferring unused balances to the child's Edusave Account when the child enters primary school will deprive parents from using the CDA balance for other purposes.
Taken together, parents can tap on Edusave and CDA to defray their child's educational and non-educational expenses during the primary school years. Unused CDA balances at the end of age 12 will be automatically transferred to the child's Post-Secondary Education Account (PSEA) to continue to support the child's educational expenses beyond primary and secondary school.
We will continue to review the uses of CDA to ensure they remain relevant to parents' needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Collaborating with Agro-food Enterprises Federation to Aggregate, Brand and Market Local Produce","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"93 Mr David Hoe asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how does the Ministry collaborate with the Singapore Agro-Food Enterprises Federation (SAFEF) in aggregating, branding and marketing local produce; and (b) whether the Ministry has information on (i) consumer awareness and sales uplift on local produce to date and (ii) plans and retailer partnerships as a result of the collaboration with SAFEF to reach the 30-by-30 target.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) has been working with the Singapore Agro-Food Enterprises Federation Limited (SAFEF) to aggregate supply and demand of local produce, so as to facilitate long-term commercial contracts between farmers and retailers as well as food businesses. This provides farmers with greater certainty of demand and pricing, while providing retailers and food businesses access to a reliable supply of good quality local produce.
Through the efforts of SAFEF and its partners, locally farmed leafy vegetables are now sold at major supermarkets under the “SG Farmers' Market” brand. Locally farmed seafood is also aggregated and retailed at selected FairPrice outlets and Giant under “The Straits Fish” (marine tilapia), “The Straits Bass” (sea bass) and “The Dot Shrimp” (prawns) brands.
Public response has been encouraging. For example, the sales for xiao bai cai under the “SG Farmers' Market” brand have increased about seven-fold since its launch in May 2024. SFA and SAFEF are working on expanding the range of aggregated local vegetable and seafood produce for sale at retailers.
Besides retailers, SAFEF has been working with various food businesses to introduce “The Straits Fish” to the local dining scene. For example, in 2024, “The Straits Fish” dishes were launched across Ming Kitchen Seafood, the \"zichar\" chain of Chang Cheng Group. In 2025, SAFEF partnered with Coriander Leaf restaurant to integrate locally farmed marine tilapia into their menu. SAFEF also runs the SG Farmers' Market, a weekend pop-up event that promotes and brings local farms and their produce to the heartlands.
SFA will continue to work with the industry to explore initiatives to drive demand for local produce, which is key for our farms to achieve scale. Together, we can continue to safeguard Singapore's food security.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Timeline and Scope of Review of Fixed-drop-off Point Scheme for Licensed Cross-border Point-to-point Services between Singapore and Johor Bahru","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"96 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Acting Minister for Transport what is the timeline and scope of the Ministry’s (a) review of current fixed-drop-off point scheme for licensed cross-border point-to-point services between Singapore and Johor Bahru; and (b) discussions with Malaysia on expanding the number or locations of approved drop-off and pick-up points.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: This question has been addressed in the written reply to Parliamentary Question No 35 at the 23 September 2025 Parliament Sitting. [Please refer to \"Considerations for Singapore’s Position on Cross-Border Ride-Hailing\", Official Report, 23 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 3, 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":"Tackling Driver Fatigue, and Workplace Fatalities and Injuries of SME Workers in Construction Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"97 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what are the Ministry’s plans to tackle driver fatigue given that vehicular accidents were the top cause of workplace fatalities based on the Workplace Safety and Health statistics for first half of 2025; and (b) whether more can be done to reduce workplace fatalities and injuries among SMEs in the construction sector which contributes a high number of accidents.\n\n\n
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) will continue to engage employers and industry associations to raise awareness of the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Guidelines on Fatigue Management, which include practical guidance in areas like providing rest breaks and managing shift work. In addition, we will continue to promote the adoption of vehicular safety technologies, such as cameras and sensors, that companies can deploy on their vehicles. These technologies can improve the situational awareness of drivers and warn them of collision risks as well as help detect signs of driver fatigue or distraction.
To the Member's second query, MOM has stepped up our inspections targeted at smaller-scale construction works throughout 2025. These include recent operations focused on solar panel installation works, renovation projects in major shopping malls and small residential projects, especially during festive seasons when work may be rushed to meet deadlines. We also require companies with major injuries to engage appointed auditors to carry out audits and address gaps to prevent recurrence.
Beyond enforcement, MOM will continue to work with our partners to help small and medium enterprises build up their internal WSH capabilities, such as through the StartSAFE programme and greater adoption of technology solutions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Recent Education Reforms on Teachers' Workload","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"98 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Minister for Education (a) what assessment has been done on the impact of recent educational reforms, such as subject-based banding and digital device initiatives, on teachers’ workload; and (b) how schools are being supported to adapt to these changes.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Ministry of Education (MOE) closely monitors teachers' workload as part of our commitment to teachers' well-being and to ensure that initiatives can be implemented sustainably. This is done through regular surveys and engagement sessions with our teachers and school leaders. Overall, the average weekly work hours reported by teachers have remained stable over the past five years.
MOE provides holistic support to schools when implementing new initiatives. This includes implementation guidelines, appropriate training, such as through workshops and briefings, and the necessary tools and resources. Teachers are also supported through platforms for collaboration and sharing of good practices. For the “Transforming Education through Technology” Masterplan 2030 implementation as an example, each school is provided with consultancy and professional development support. We also provided schools with EdTech resources such as centrally deployed artificial intelligence tools to support lesson planning and marking.
In addition, schools are given flexibility on implementation timelines where appropriate. For example, schools could decide on when to come onboard the Masterplan 2030 over a period of four years. For Full Subject-Based Banding, lessons learned from pilot schools enable MOE to better support schools closely with useful resources and good practices for each phase of schools. Such flexibility and phasing in allow schools to consider issues such as teacher readiness and reduces the amount of change management.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Supporting Mental Well-being of Preschool Educators","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"99 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what programmes and measures are in place to support the mental well-being of pre-school educators given concerns that heavy workloads, administrative demands, and limited ability to take leave affect their work-life balance and overall wellness.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) recognises that supporting educators' well-being is crucial in enabling them to carry out their responsibilities effectively.
To ease short-term manpower needs, such as when educators go on leave, ECDA has set up a relief staff pool that preschools can tap on through appointed service providers. To help streamline educators' workload, ease administrative load and enhance productivity, the Early Childhood Industry Digital Plan provides a structured framework and funding support to preschool operators to implement proven digital solutions. More information on ongoing initiatives to improve educators' well-being can be found in our reply to an earlier Parliamentary Question on 2 July 2024. [Please refer to \"Child Abuse Cases in Preschools and Teacher Support Measures Identified\", Official Report, 2 July 2024, Vol 95, Issue 137, Written Answers to Questions section.]
ECDA will continue to work with training providers to offer Continuing Professional Development courses to equip educators with the relevant competencies and strategies for building resilience as well as developing self-care practices.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Meta's Compliance with Implementation Directive issued by Online Criminal Harms Act Competent Authority and Enhanced Measures that Followed","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"100 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether Meta has complied with the Implementation Directive issued by the Online Criminal Harms Act (OCHA) Competent Authority by the 30 September 2025 deadline; (b) what specific enhanced measures have been implemented by Meta as a result; and (c) whether similar directives are being considered for other platforms where scams are prevalent.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Implementation Directive requires Meta to strengthen Facebook's measures against impersonation scams. This includes enhancing measures to stop and/or prevent the publication of photos and videos of key Government office holders used in scam advertisements, remove accounts, profiles and/or business pages that impersonate these office holders, and prioritise the review of end user reports from Singapore on such advertisements, accounts, profiles and/or pages. The the Online Criminal Harms Act (OCHA) Competent Authority will assess Meta's compliance after it submits the relevant documentation by 31 October 2025.
We will consider imposing similar requirements on other online platforms depending on the scam situation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Oversight of Deviations Made by Rail Operators from Train Manufacturer's Recommended Maintenance Schedule","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"101 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) what regulations are rail operators subjected to when they deviate from a train manufacturer's recommended train maintenance schedule; and (b) whether the Ministry will review SMRT's waiver approval system after the Transport Safety Investigation Bureau (TSIB) report of 31 May 2025 has found that waivers are granted without proper engineering justification or meticulous documentation.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: This question has been addressed in the written reply issued for Parliamentary Question No 58 for written answer for the 24 September 2025 Parliament Sitting. [Please refer to \"Regulatory Oversight over Rail Operators' Safety Decisions following East-West Line Incident on 25 September 2024\", Official Report, 24 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 4, 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":"Sovereign Limits on Foreign-sourced Military Equipment Used by SAF","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"102 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Coordinating Minister for Public Services and Minister for Defence (a) whether there are any sovereign limits that are placed on foreign-sourced military equipment used by the SAF; (b) if so, what measures are in place to ensure that these limits do not infringe on Singapore's ability to act independently and defend itself; and (c) whether the government aims to reduce its dependence on foreign-sourced military equipment over time.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: We procure both overseas and locally made defence equipment, based on what best meet the Singapore Armed Force's (SAF's) operational needs in a cost-effective way. It is common for defence equipment to come with end user obligations, such as conditions related to the protection of proprietary technology and third-party equipment transfers. Before making any acquisition, we would have assessed that the SAF can deploy the equipment to meet our operational needs, while complying with the obligations. In many instances, certain elements of the foreign defence equipment purchased by us are also localised, through technology transfers and building up of local maintenance capabilities, giving us added assurance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing Temporary Permit (Exhibition) Scheme to Ensure Level Playing Field between Established Firms and Newly-registered Firms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"103 Mr Victor Lye asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will review the Temporary Permit (Exhibition) Scheme (TPES) to ensure that it does not create an uneven playing field between established Singapore firms that maintain a resident workforce and newly-registered companies that may rely solely on TPES exemptions.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Temporary Permit (Exhibition) Scheme (or TPES) is highly scoped to address the seasonal manpower needs of the Meetings, Incentives, Exhibitions and Conventions industry.
First, workers hired through TPES can only carry out installation and teardown of stalls and booths. Second, this can only be done at six whitelisted exhibition venues. Third, these workers can only be hired for a maximum of three weeks. Fourth, these workers must be Malaysians. This does not create an uneven playing field as all firms, regardless of whether they are established Singapore firms or newly registered companies, can tap on this scheme for their seasonal manpower needs.
We will continue to monitor and review the implementation of the TPES to ensure its relevance and effectiveness.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Approval Process for Requests for Air-conditioners to be Installed in HDB Rental Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"106 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Minister for National Development (a) of the HDB public rental flats that are occupied, how many are currently approved to have air-conditioning units installed; (b) what are the common grounds on which such requests have been approved; and (c) what is the average waiting time for HDB to approve a rental flat tenant's request for air-conditioning installation.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: As of August 2025, about 7,000 public rental flats had air conditioners installed. The Housing and Development Board will take into consideration tenants' circumstances, including medical grounds, in assessing each application. Approvals for air conditioner installation are usually issued within two weeks, if the proposed installation complies with the technical guidelines.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Trends for Singapore's Tax Sources and Strategies to Ensure Long-term Tax Revenue Sustainability","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"107 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in light of the IRAS' latest annual report showing that corporate income tax and GST are the two largest revenue sources (a) whether such trends are expected to persist; and (b) what strategies are being adopted to ensure long-term tax revenue sustainability given the volatility of corporate tax collections, potential of economic slowdowns and evolving global tax regimes.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Corporate income taxes and goods and services taxes are regularly the highest contributors to tax revenue. While corporate income tax collections have increased in recent years, this cannot be taken for granted, given the increasingly competitive investment landscape, economic volatility and new developments on international tax regimes like the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Pillar Two. The increase in Goods and Services Tax (GST) revenue due to the GST rate increase in the last term of Government supports medium-term priorities, such as rising healthcare costs of an ageing population.
Revenue sustainability is an integral part of Singapore's fiscal strategy. This is why we made several revenue moves in the last term of Government to make our tax base more resilient and diversified. The Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) from our Reserves now provides about a fifth of our annual budget. We will continue to manage our expenditure prudently, while adjusting our tax policies where necessary to adapt to changing circumstances.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on $150 Million Drainage Projects to Improve Flood Resilience in FY2025","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"108 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether an update can be provided on the $150 million drainage projects to improve flood resilience in FY2025; (b) how does our annual spend on flood resilience measures compare to other cities, such as Tokyo and Hong Kong; and (c) what is the Ministry's drainage infrastructure plan for the next review cycle of 2026 to 2030.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: We last updated Parliament in February 2025 that Singapore would spend about $150 million on drainage upgrading projects in the Financial Year (FY) 2025 to protect against flooding. Of the then 19 ongoing projects, we have completed four projects, including the recently completed Syed Alwi Pumping Station. Of the then six projects slated to commence in 2025, we have commenced work on three projects. We are on track to commence the remaining three projects in 2025.
The Government has spent about S$2.5 billion since 2011 to upgrade our drainage infrastructure. This is about S$180 million annually. These infrastructure projects have helped to alleviate flood risks at the locations served by them. It is not meaningful to compare with Hong Kong and Tokyo as the cities have different weather conditions, topography and drainage infrastructure requirements.
We will be completing the review of our drainage infrastructure plan for the FY2026 to FY2030 cycle in the coming months. This review will identify the key projects for the next five years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Private Property Purchases by Permanent Residents and Impact of Such Purchases on Housing Prices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"109 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for National Development whether (a) the Ministry is monitoring private property purchases by Singapore Permanent Residents (SPR); and (b) whether purchases by SPR play a significant role in driving up private property prices or affect housing affordability for Singapore citizens.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Singapore Permanent Residents (PRs) account for a small and stable share of private residential property transactions. In the first three quarters of 2025, the share of private residential property transactions by PRs was 13%, compared to an average of 15% in the past five years. The data shows that purchases by PRs are not a key driver for movements in private residential property prices.
We will continue to monitor the property market closely and adjust our policies as necessary to promote a stable and sustainable property market.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Addressing Challenges that Prevent Special Needs Young Adults from Securing and Retaining Employment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"110 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in view of existing schemes, such as the Open Door Programme and Enabling Employment Credit (a) what challenges still prevent young adults with special needs from securing and retaining meaningful employment; and (b) how does the Ministry plan to address these barriers and strengthen collaboration with employers to enhance inclusivity and job design.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Persons with disabilities may face challenges securing employment as some employers are not aware of the benefits of inclusive hiring or have limited knowledge and in-house capabilities to do so, such as providing accessible workplace and reasonable job accommodations. Persons with disabilities may also require employment support to identify job opportunities aligned to their strengths and interests, as well as additional training and job coaching to acquire the skills needed for the job and to adapt to the workplace.
The Government has put in place measures over the years to support employers to strengthen inclusive employment practices. Under the Open Door Programme, employers can tap on customised employment support from trained job coaches, as well as grants to support job redesign and workshops to prepare them and their employees without disabilities to interact with, hire, integrate and retain employees with disabilities in their organisation.
In addition, employers receive wage offsets through the Enabling Employment Credit. We also introduced a new Employer Development Grant from 2025 to empower employers to build up their inclusive hiring capabilities. This will enable them to scale up efforts to hire persons with disabilities and support their long-term retention.
To support persons with disabilities who require more employment support and training, the Enabling Business Hub, launched by SG Enable in 2023, provides customised skills training in the logistics sector, as well as longer and more intensive job support.
The Government will continue to grow and develop capabilities of inclusive employers and expand employment opportunities, through a comprehensive suite of support for inclusive hiring. SG Enable is taking a sectoral approach to curate job opportunities in six key sectors that either traditionally hire or have growing potential for job opportunities suitable for persons with disabilities, namely food and beverage, retail, information and communications, health and social services, transport and storage, and financial and insurance services. In addition, SG Enable and its partners will continue working with employers to curate and support persons with disabilities to take on short-term assignments or gig jobs, as a stepping stone to build up their work stamina and experience, or as an alternative to formal employment for those who prefer more flexible work.
We recognise that job coaches play an important role in providing practical advice on job redesign, accommodations and inclusive hiring practices to build an inclusive workplace environment. We will do more to uplift their capabilities. In September 2024, SG Enable launched the Job Coach Career Map to support the professional development of job coaches. SG Enable will also curate platforms such as learning journeys to companies across the six key sectors to equip job coaches with a better understanding of the job opportunities and functions of these industries.
Ultimately, we need to shift towards a workplace culture where employers recognise the benefits that inclusive hiring can bring to the organisation, including more purpose-driven employees, and an innovative and learning culture.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale for Plans to Ease Tax Framework Requirements for Single Family Offices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"111 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what is the rationale for the Monetary Authority of Singapore's recently announced plans to ease requirements on the tax framework for single family offices; (b) whether it has seen an outflow of family offices in the last three quarters; and (c) what is the latest assessment of the industry's impact on our economy and social fabric.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) is reviewing the tax schemes for Single Family Offices (SFO)1 to reduce operational friction and ensuring that the schemes continue to generate economic benefits for Singapore. Taking into account industry feedback, MAS is looking to (a) streamline application documentation, (b) simplify reporting obligations, and (c) expand the types of investments eligible under the tax schemes.
MAS has not observed a net outflow of SFOs, but it regularly reviews its schemes so that they remain relevant and competitive. Other jurisdictions, including Hong Kong, have similarly announced reviews of their family office frameworks. When families set up and maintain SFOs in Singapore, they use financial products and services offered by external service providers, such as private banks, fund managers, legal and tax advisors, fund administrators and accounting firms. This generates business revenue and creates jobs.
As SFOs continue to grow in Singapore, there are now more platforms available for them to interact with and support local communities, including through the Wealth Management Institute's Family Office Discovery Series, the Global-Asia Family Office Circle, as well as other philanthropic organisations and networks, such as Philanthropy Asia Alliance and ImpactSG. There are several examples of families giving back to the community here, including: the Ishk Tolaram Foundation which has supported the education and skills training for dyslexic preschoolers since 2021 and autistic talent to pursue engineering careers since 2022; and the James Dyson Foundation which supports engineering and Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education in Singapore for students aged six to 25, across primary to tertiary levels.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : These are the tax incentive schemes for funds under sections 13O and 13U of the Income Tax Act."],"footNoteQuestions":["111"],"questionNo":"111"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Integrating Public Health Apps into One \"Front Door\" with Common Design and Interoperability","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"112 Mr David Hoe asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health given the multiple public health apps (a) whether the Ministry plans to (i) integrate or rationalise them into one \"front door\" (ii) compel a common design system with interoperability, for example, Singpass SSO, shared APIs, unified inbox, for them and (iii) mandate inclusive functionalities, for example, multilingual helplines; and (b) if so, what are the target timelines and proposed key performance indicators.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: On 7 March 2025, the Ministry of Health announced plans to consolidate HealthHub and the three Cluster apps – Health Buddy, NHG Health and OneNUHS – into a single app by 2027.
We want our digital health services to be inclusive and easy to navigate for all users. Current inclusive features include support for Singapore's four official languages and compatibility with assistive technologies, such as VoiceOver and text-to-speech tools, to support users with visual impairments. We will continue to review the functionalities and user interface as part of ongoing improvements.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reducing Necessity for Mass Evacuation of Passengers via Train Tracks during Incidents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"113 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) what manual train or carriage recovery methods has LTA studied to reduce the necessity for mass evacuation of passengers onto the tracks; (b) what specific plans are in place to improve the experience and safety for commuters with mobility aids such as seniors on wheelchairs or parents with strollers during emergency evacuation, especially in underground tunnel segments.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The evacuation of commuters onto the tracks is a last resort that is only carried out when it is not possible to move a stalled train within a reasonable period of time, or in the event of emergency such as fire or smoke on a stalled train.
Besides the use of rescue trains to move stalled trains so that passengers can disembark at stations, newer trains on the North-South and East-West Lines and the Jurong Region Line are equipped with batteries that enable them to reach the nearest station even when there is no traction power.
During evacuation, operators follow protocols to ensure commuters are evacuated safely. Special attention is given to those with mobility challenges, such as the elderly and people on wheelchairs. Trained officers are deployed to evacuate such passengers. If a train is stalled between stations, Singapore Civil Defence Force personnel are deployed to help evacuate such passengers safely. Train service is only resumed after all passengers are safely evacuated and this is why sometimes train disruptions can take several hours to be resolved.
As part of its work to improve rail reliability and incident response, the Rail Reliability Taskforce formed on 19 September 2025 will look into ways stalled trains can be recovered faster, with a view to further reducing instances where commuters must be evacuated onto the tracks.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Government's Response to MRT Network's Reliability Falling to Lowest Level since 2020","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"114 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) what is the Ministry's assessment of the MRT network’s reliability over the 12 months ending June 2025 falling to its lowest level since 2020; and (b) whether the Ministry is satisfied that the maintenance regime for these ageing MRT lines is proactive enough to prevent further deterioration and major disruptions.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: This question has been addressed in the oral response issued for Parliamentary Question Nos 19 to 24 for Oral Answer for the 22 September 2025 Parliament Sitting. [Please refer to \"Causes for Recent MRT and LRT Breakdowns, and Measures to Improve Rail Reliability and Review Financial Penalties\", Official Report, 22 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 2, 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":"Installation of Anti-bird Netting on Town Council Building Facades","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"115 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether any request to install anti-bird netting in Town Council building facades is subject to SCDF approval, and that any request to SCDF must be accompanied with a plan submission by a Qualified Person; and (b) whether the Ministry has issued guidance on what materials for anti-bird netting are Fire Code-compliant.
Mr K Shanmugam: The installation of anti-bird netting on building facades does not require Singapore Civil Defence Force's approval nor a submission by a Qualified Person. However, the Fire Code does require the anti-bird netting to be made using materials of limited combustibility and its installation must not contravene Fire Code requirements. The prevailing industry standards for materials of limited combustibility are stated in the Fire Code.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Study on Effectiveness of Mandating Age Limits for Social Media Access","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"116 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information whether the Ministry can provide an update on the study on the effectiveness of mandating age limits for social media access.
Mrs Josephine Teo: There is a wide range of age assurance solutions on the market, including age verification, age estimation and age inference solutions. However, none of these measures are foolproof. A child can still circumvent these measures, such as through using an adult's account to access age-inappropriate content.
Nonetheless, the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) has taken the first step to require designated App Distribution Services, also known as app stores, to implement age assurance measures as part of the Code of Practice for Online Safety for App Distribution Services. The age assurance measures seek to reduce the likelihood of young users accessing and downloading age-inappropriate apps of all types, beyond just social media apps. Designated app stores are expected to implement these age assurance measures by 31 March 2026. At the outset, they are required to be able to minimally ascertain whether users are under 18.
Later this year, we will also begin to engage designated social media services on similar age assurance requirements. This comes on top of existing protective measures for children under the current Code of Practice for Online Safety for Social Media Services.
Like many parents, we believe it is important to protect children and youth from inappropriate content when they go online. Age assurance measures are useful but insufficient. This is why MDDI will also work with the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Social and Family Development, as well as community partners, to better support parents with information resources and actionable tips.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data for Wage Offsets Received through Uplifting Employment Credit Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"117 Mr Victor Lye asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how many employers have received wage offsets under the Uplifting Employment Credit (UEC) scheme since its launch in April 2023; (b) how many ex-offenders have been hired under the scheme to date, broken down by industry and job types; and (c) what proportion of these ex-offenders remain employed after nine months.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Uplifting Employment Credit (UEC) provides employers of ex-offenders with wage offsets of up to 20% of their monthly income, for a period of nine months. Based on the latest available data, about 1,200 employers have received wage offsets for hiring over 3,200 ex-offenders since the scheme's launch in April 2023 to December 2024.
These hires were employed in various industries, with the highest concentrations in administrative and support services, as well as accommodation and food services. They have typically been employed in roles such as car and light goods vehicle drivers, cleaning supervisors, and cleaners and helpers in hotels, offices and other establishments.
Of the more than 1,500 ex-offenders hired under the UEC between April and December 2023, over half remained employed after the nine months of wage support ended. This is based on the available data on retention. We will continue to monitor the outcomes of the UEC to support ex-offenders in finding employment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Old Voting District Reflected with Change of Physical Identity Card","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance why does a change of the physical NRIC effected after the cut-off date for the inspection of voter rolls result in a reversion of the voting district to the old district.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): A change in the personal particulars of a voter's National Registration Identity Card does not automatically result in a change in the constituency where the voter is registered to vote. Instead, voter addresses are updated from time to time via an exercise to revise the Registers of Electors (REs), based on the Government's records as of a date prescribed in legislation. The current date for voters who are eligible to be included in the REs for an election is 1 February 2025. This approach balances the need to safeguard the integrity of voter rolls and to ensure that the REs used for an election are updated, while providing certainty to prospective candidates on the number of Singaporeans who are qualified to vote at the election in each constituency.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enhancements to Extended Childcare Leave Scheme and Proposal of New Leave Scheme for Caregivers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Ministry will consider (i) reviewing the Extended Childcare Leave scheme to increase the number of leave days reimbursed by the Government and (ii) introducing a Paid Caregiving Leave scheme similar to the Government-paid Childcare Leave scheme, for caregivers of elderly parents and other family dependents.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): The Government provides a wide range of support for parents and caregivers to manage both caregiving and work responsibilities.
We have been progressively enhancing parental leave provisions to support working parents in managing their work and caregiving responsibilities, including recent enhancements to Government-Paid Paternity Leave and the introduction of the new Shared Parental Leave (SPL) scheme. We recognise that parents continue to require time-off from work to care for their children beyond the early years and will study how to better support them to do so, as part of our regular review of policies.
Apart from childcare, we also recognise that employees may have other caregiving needs such as care for elderly parents and other family dependents. Even without any legislated requirement, many progressive employers have stepped up to introduce caregiving-related leave provisions, as part of their strategy to attract and retain good workers.
In considering further enhancements to legislated leave provisions, we will need to strike a balance between the caregiving needs of employees and the business costs and manpower needs of employers. We also need to provide employers with some time to adjust to the new SPL scheme which took effect in April this year and will only be fully implemented from April next year.
Beyond leave provisions, working caregivers have highlighted that flexible work arrangements (FWAs) have been useful in helping them manage work and caregiving responsibilities. The Tripartite Guidelines on FWA Requests were therefore implemented in December 2024 to set norms and expectations on how employees should request for FWAs and use them responsibly, as well as how employers should consider and respond to such requests properly.
The Government will continue to assess the current leave provisions. The Government remains committed to supporting the needs of working caregivers and will continue to work with the tripartite partners to foster more family-friendly workplaces.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing Policy Framework of PayNow Surcharge Rules to Ensure Consistency of Consumer Protection Measures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Alex Yeo asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Government is aware of any entities, including Singapore Pools, which are exempt or specific circumstances that may exempt an entity from the rules prohibiting merchants from imposing surcharges for PayNow transactions; and (b) if so, whether the Ministry would consider reviewing the policy framework for exemptions to ensure consistency with consumer protection measures applied to private businesses.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): Today, over 300,000 businesses in Singapore are registered to use PayNow as a safe and low-cost way to make and receive payments digitally. Transaction fees for payments received by merchants from end-consumers are currently waived by the major retail banks, while a minimal fee is charged if the merchant uses additional services like notifications for funds received.
The Association of Banks in Singapore (ABS), which owns the PayNow scheme, has rules that prohibit merchants from imposing a surcharge on customers who wish to make payments via PayNow.
ABS is aware that Singapore Pools currently imposes a surcharge on PayNow transactions. ABS, through the relevant PayNow banks which have contractual relationship with Singapore Pools, has been engaging Singapore Pools to address this practice.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Applications for MAS' FinTech Regulatory Sandbox Framework","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) since 2016, how many entities have joined one of MAS' regulatory sandboxes, broken down by the three sandbox categories; (b) what is the median processing time for applications; (c) how many entities obtained a relevant licence after graduation; and (d) how many have ceased operations in Singapore at the end of September.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): The breakdown across each of the three categories is as follows:
Some applicants were not accepted into the Sandbox as existing regulatory frameworks already allowed for their business models to operate. For Sandbox Plus, there were no approvals so far as most applications received were based on technologies and solutions that already exist in Singapore.
The median processing time for Sandbox applications, from submission to outcome notification, is around three months. This includes the time taken for applicants to respond to the Monetary Authority of Singapore's clarifications. Of the 19 firms accepted into the Sandbox, 15 firms have successfully graduated from the Sandbox and obtained relevant licences to operate as fully regulated financial services providers in Singapore. One firm that had graduated from the Sandbox ceased operations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Publish Data on Commission Fees and Contractual Clauses of Delivery Platforms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) is monitoring and publishing data on commission fees and clauses of dominant e-commerce and online food-delivery platforms; and (b) whether CCCS will conduct a fresh market study and issue remedies or guidance, building on its 2020 inquiries, to prevent excessive costs associated with online trading that harm SMEs.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCS) does not ordinarily collect and publish commercially sensitive data such as commission fees or contractual clauses applied by e-commerce platforms. Instead, CCS actively monitors market developments and intervenes where there are concerns relating to competition and consumer protection. For example, CCS has conducted multiple investigations into potentially anti-competitive practices in the online food delivery sector since 2016. Recently, CCS has also intervened in a merger involving food delivery platforms.
Beyond market surveillance and enforcement, CCS also works with businesses to raise industry standards and address competition and consumer protection issues in the digital space. Most recently, CCS, together with the Singapore Standards Council under Enterprise Singapore, collaborated with e-commerce platforms and industry players to enhance the Technical Reference 76 on e-commerce transactions (TR 76). The enhanced TR 76 builds on earlier updates to CCS's competition guidelines arising from the 2020 market study, to provide further guidance to e-commerce platforms on best practices to ensure fair treatment of merchants, promote an open and competitive e-commerce market, as well as enhance consumer protection and trust.
Ultimately, the best approach to safeguard the interests of merchants and consumers is to ensure competitive markets so that prices are fair. The Government will investigate and intervene where there are market failures, and we welcome feedback from businesses and consumers to help us do so effectively.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of F1 Singapore Grand Prix on Businesses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Foo Cexiang asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Ministry has been engaging business owners to assess the impact of the F1 Singapore Grand Prix; and (b) since its inception, what are the improvements in support measures provided to business owners who have reported adverse impact to their businesses due to the F1 Singapore Grand Prix.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Government agencies, such as the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) and the Land Transport Authority, as well as race promoter Singapore GP Pte Ltd (SGP), regularly engage business stakeholders, with a particular focus on those operating in the Marina Bay area to hear their feedback. Where possible, the agencies will implement measures to mitigate the disruptions arising from the Formula 1 (F1) Singapore Grand Prix. Examples of such measures include providing access and better wayfinding within and around the Marina Bay area and ensuring malls in the area remain accessible via public transport and taxis or private hire cars. Agencies have also worked to reduce the road closure period from 12 days in 2008 to seven days today.
STB has also worked with businesses in the Marina Bay area and across Singapore to capitalise on the buzz created by the race through the Grand Prix Season Singapore (GPSS) initiative. GPSS offers 10 days of stakeholder-led race-themed festivities that spotlight our vibrant attractions, retail, dining and entertainment options to complement the race experience. We encourage businesses to participate in GPSS or develop their own initiatives to capitalise on the increased footfall and additional spend that is generated from the race.
Since the inception of the F1 Singapore Grand Prix in 2008, the F1 race has brought in more than 720,000 international visitors and generated more than $2.2 billion in incremental tourism receipts across industries such as hospitality, food and beverage, attractions and retail for Singapore.
Agencies and SGP will continue to explore ways to support businesses to derive greater benefits and also minimise the disruptions from the F1 Singapore Grand Prix.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Singapore's Dependency on Natural Gas Market on Electricity Tariffs for Consumers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) to what extent has Singapore's dependency on the volatile global natural gas market contributed to the recent electricity tariff hike for consumers; and (b) what is the Ministry's assessment of the potential long-term impact of stabilising household electricity prices from an accelerated transition to renewable energy sources.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The regulated electricity tariff in the fourth quarter of 2025 increased slightly by 0.3% from the preceding quarter. As a small country, Singapore is a price-taker for energy and more than 95% of our energy needs are currently met by imported natural gas. Hence, changes in the tariff generally reflects movements in imported fuel costs which constitute the largest component of the tariff. Electricity tariffs have been on a general downtrend, decreasing by about 9% since prices peaked in the third quarter of 2022.
Increasing the share of renewable energy in our energy mix may reduce our exposure to movements in fuel cost. We will continue to deploy renewable energy domestically wherever possible, particularly solar energy which is the most cost-effective type of renewable energy available in Singapore today. As of the first quarter of 2025, we have deployed 1.64 gigawatt-peak (GWp) of domestic solar, surpassing our 2025 target of 1.5 GWp. While we will continue to press on with solar deployment, Singapore is alternative energy-disadvantaged owing to our small size. This limits our domestic deployment of renewable energy. Hence, natural gas will remain a major part of our fuel mix while we continue to explore other low-carbon energy sources.
The overall impact of transitioning to low-carbon energy sources on electricity prices remains uncertain at this juncture. It will depend on which low-carbon energy sources we introduce into our energy mix, as well as when we do so.
8 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs whether the Ministry has conducted an assessment to align penalties for possessing manufacturing equipment under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 with those under the Guns, Explosive and Weapons Control Act 2021, which targets unauthorised possession of digital blueprints and major parts of firearms, to effectively combat domestic production of harmful drug-delivery systems.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) criminalises the manufacture, supply, possession, import and export of equipment, materials or substances used for manufacturing controlled drugs. We do not criminalise the manufacturing of drug delivery systems, since paraphernalia that are misused for drug abuse could have legitimate uses. For example, syringes are used in medical settings.
We assess that the current provisions are adequate and it is not necessary to align the penalties between the MDA and the Guns, Explosives and Weapons Control Act 2021.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Making Online Reporting More Prominent on CNB Homepage","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr David Hoe asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs whether the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) will consider improving public reporting channels for suspected drug activity by making online reporting more prominent on the CNB homepage.
Mr K Shanmugam: There are several channels that the public can use to report suspected drug activity to the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB). For emergencies, the public may call 999 or the CNB's 24-hour hotline at 1800-325-6666. Non-urgent matters can be reported through the CNB website at https://eservices.cnb.gov.sg/feedback.
CNB will consider the Member's suggestion.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Emergency Evacuation Protocols for High-rise Fires Involving Seniors or Residents with Mobility Impairments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr David Hoe asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what emergency evacuation protocols exist for high-rise fires involving seniors or residents with mobility impairments; (b) whether SCDF, in partnership with HDB Town Councils, will consider holding community fire drills to raise awareness; and (c) whether SCDF will consider piloting refuge points, evacuation chairs or neighbour-assist schemes in estates with substantial proportions of elderly.
Mr K Shanmugam: When responding to a high-rise fire, the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) prioritises the evacuation of occupants on the floor affected by the fire and generally those residing in the two floors above. As every residential unit is designed as a fire compartment to prevent the spread of fire to adjacent units, residents on the other floors should remain in their units, and will only be evacuated if SCDF assesses that it is necessary.
Super high-rise residential buildings that are over 40 storeys are designed with refuge floors at intervals of not more than 20 storeys. These serve as a safe holding area so that residents do not have to travel many floors down to leave the building in case of a fire.
Seniors and residents with mobility impairments who cannot evacuate independently should stay within their units in a safe room, close the door, inform the authorities about their location, and await assistance for evacuation. This approach is aligned with international best practices and seeks to minimise injuries or mishaps that may result from the self-evacuation of less mobile residents.
Community support for these residents, particularly prior to the arrival of the authorities, can also make a difference. In this regard, the SCDF worked with the Jalan Besar Group Representation Constituency grassroots organisations to launch \"Fire Safety Kakis\", on 1 March 2025. This is a community volunteer initiative to help evacuate the elderly and vulnerable in the event of a fire in their home or block.
The Member may refer to similar Parliamentary Questions filed for the Sittings on 23 and 24 September 2025 for his queries on community fire drills and evacuation chairs respectively. [Please refer to \"Public Education Campaign to Address Fire Incidents in HDB Flats\", Official Report, 23 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 3, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section; and \"Evacuation Procedures for High-rise Fires in Older HDB Blocks\", Official Report, 24 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 4, 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":"Passing of Night Blindness Test as Requirement for Obtaining Driving Licence","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Foo Cexiang asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the visual requirements to obtain a driving licence include a (i) test for night blindness or (ii) declaration that a candidate does not suffer from night blindness; and (b) if there are presently no such visual requirements, whether the Traffic Police will consider implementing them to enhance road safety.
Mr K Shanmugam: The current driving licence visual requirements do not include a test for night blindness. However, applicants must declare whether they suffer from any disease or physical disability such that their driving may endanger the public. This includes night blindness if it significantly impairs the applicant's driving ability. False declaration is an offence.
Where such declarations are made, the applicant will not be granted a licence, unless they undergo a medical test to demonstrate his or her fitness or ability to drive.
We assess that the current regime for new licence applications is adequate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Clemency Procedure to Provide Death Row Prisoners and Families Advance Information of Petition Outcomes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Ministry has completed its review of the clemency procedure to provide death row prisoners and their families with outcomes of clemency petitions some time in advance of any notification on the execution date and time; and (b) if so, what is the outcome of the review.
Mr K Shanmugam: A prisoner awaiting capital punishment (PACP) will be scheduled for execution when he has exhausted all legal channels in relation to his conviction and sentence.
Previously, if a petition for clemency is submitted, the PACP and his family would receive both the notification of the outcome of the petition from the President's Office, and the notification of the execution date from the Singapore Prison Service, at the same time.
Since the completion of the review, the Ministry of Home Affairs has ensured that as long as the clemency petition is received in a timely manner following the conclusion of all legal proceedings in relation to his conviction and sentence, the PACP will receive notification of the outcome of the consideration for clemency some time prior to the notification of the execution date if the petition is unsuccessful.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Evaluating Risky and Ineffective Airdrops of Humanitarian Aid to Intended Recipients","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Coordinating Minister for Public Services and Minister for Defence whether the Ministry has evaluated the value of conducting airdrops of humanitarian aid, in the light of concerns that such airdrops into the Gaza strip have been ineffective, dangerous and risky to intended recipients.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The preferred and most effective model of humanitarian aid delivery to Gaza is via land transfer. Airdrops, which entail higher risk and cost, are a last resort when land transfer becomes restricted and the humanitarian situation is dire.
To reduce the risk to the intended recipients, the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) worked with the Royal Jordanian Air Force to select suitable drop zones, taking into consideration the safety of civilians in Gaza. Checks were conducted to ensure that the parachutes and loads were rigged in accordance with established safety standards and practices. The RSAF crew also carried out detailed planning to ensure the aid loads would land within the identified drop zones safely.
If needed and tasked to conduct airdrops in Gaza as a last resort, the RSAF will continue to take similar precautions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjusting Procurement of Key Platforms to Ensure SAF's Readiness and Agility","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Lee Hong Chuang asked the Coordinating Minister for Public Services and Minister for Defence in view of shifting global security landscape and rising use of unmanned systems (a) how is the Ministry adjusting its procurement of key platforms in ensuring SAF's readiness and agility; (b) what training and support are provided to equip servicemen, especially NSFs, for such advanced technologies; (c) how is increased FY2025 defence spending balanced with fiscal sustainability, operational needs and international defence commitments.\n
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) and the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) continually monitor the changing nature of security threats and warfare. We also scan the horizon to identify and assess new and emerging technologies that can complement the SAF's existing capabilities.
Unmanned systems is one example. The SAF has operated drones since the late 1980s, starting with the Scout Remotely Piloted Vehicle. As unmanned technologies progressed, the SAF acquired and introduced other unmanned systems and operational concepts, and provided relevant training to its personnel, including Full-Time and Operationally Ready National Servicemen.
More SAF units and personnel will be equipped with and trained in unmanned systems and other emerging technologies in the years ahead. MINDEF and the SAF will continue to invest the defence budget prudently and consistently to build up our capabilities in a systematic and sustainable manner.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Salary Review of Allied Health Professionals and Key Findings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Darryl David asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) when was the last salary review of allied health professionals held; (b) what were some of the key findings and recommendations; and (c) whether the Government can provide an update on some of the follow-up actions taken since then.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The last salary review of allied health professionals (AHPs) in public healthcare institutions was implemented in July 2025. AHPs received increases of up to 7% to their monthly base salaries.
The Ministry of Health will continue monitoring the review of the remuneration packages of healthcare workers regularly to ensure market competitiveness.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reports of Abandoned Vapes in Transport Areas and Extension of Vape Disposal Bins to Non-restricted Areas at Transport Nodes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether reports of abandoned vapes have increased in transport areas like bus interchanges, MRT stations or back of taxis and buses; (b) whether vape disposal bins can be extended to non-restricted areas at transport nodes; and (c) whether the Ministry can work with Public Transport Operators to develop Standard Operating Procedures and safety measures for confronting vape users.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Reports of abandoned e-vaporisers in transport areas have not increased.
E-vaporiser bins are placed where QuitVape and rehabilitation programmes are provided. Individuals are encouraged to discard their e-vaporisers at these locations, or where the e-vaporisers cannot be easily seen and picked up by another person.
About 1,000 frontline Public Transport Operator staff have been trained by the Health Sciences Authority to carry out enforcement activities in a consistent, fair and safe manner.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Implementation of IMH's Suicide Warning Framework in School and Polyclinic SOPs and Data on Gatekeeper Training Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether standard operating procedures in schools and polyclinics incorporate the Institute of Mental Health's (IMH) acute suicide warning sign framework; and (b) whether the Ministry can publish data on (i) the coverage of gatekeeper training and (ii) the median and 90th-percentile time from school alert to first clinical contact, after-hours escalations, and evaluation results.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The question has been addressed in the oral reply to Parliamentary Question No 14 in the 14 October 2025 Sitting. [Please refer to \"Analysing Mental Health Issues Faced by Students\", Official Report, 14 October 2025, Vol 96, Issue 7, 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":"Average Population-to-facility Size Ratio for Polyclinics and Ratio for Polyclinics in Sengkang and Punggol","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what is the average population-to-facility size ratio for polyclinics serving a town, and (b) what is the ratio for the polyclinics in Sengkang and Punggol.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health (MOH) does not plan the development of polyclinics using a population-to-facility size ratio. This is because factors such as the age profile of residents, the availability of private clinics and accessibility of other polyclinics nearby, all affect demand for polyclinic services. Instead, MOH projects the demand for polyclinic services across various parts of Singapore using various factors and uses this as a basis to develop polyclinic development plans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enhance Training for Healthcare Professionals Engaging Grieving Families of Deceased Organ Donors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Ms Gho Sze Kee asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether there are any plans to enhance the protocols and training for healthcare professionals who engage grieving families of deceased organ donors; and (b) for Singaporeans and PRs who reach an advanced age, whether the Ministry will consider sending them reminders that they could object or withdraw their objections to the compulsory donation provisions of the Human Organ Transplant Act 1987.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health (MOH) provides regular training to equip healthcare professionals, including doctors, medical social workers, transplant coordinators, with the skills to communicate sensitively with families of deceased organ donors. There are no plans to enhance the protocols and training for them.
We issue information packages on the Human Organ Transplant Act to all Citizens and Permanent Residents turning 21 years old to enable informed decision-making and encourage them to discuss their decision on organ donation with their family. We also support campaigns, like the Live On Festival, to foster broader discussions and meaningful conversations about organ donation. MOH's public awareness efforts will reach diverse population segments, including those of advanced age, so they can remain informed about their options.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Multiple Sourcing for Drugs, Consumables and Laboratory Services for Competitive Pricing in Public Hospitals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether public hospitals practise multiple sourcing for drugs, consumables and laboratory services to ensure competitive pricing; and (b) whether the Ministry will mandate a systematic productivity extraction factor, for example of 1% to 2% annually, so that efficiency gains are passed on to patients and policyholders rather than fully absorbed into rising charges.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health (MOH) has set up the Agency of Logistics and Procurement Services to aggregate procurement amongst public health institutions where practicable. Our procurement processes also enhance supply resiliency through contracts with multiple suppliers.
Productivity extraction is generally not practiced in the healthcare industry internationally. Since 2023, we have shifted to capitation funding for our public healthcare clusters. This imposes stronger discipline on public healthcare expenditure by incentivising clusters to maximise value, through both productivity gains and investments in preventive health and population health. MOH will continue to monitor the public healthcare expenditure and overall bill sizes to ensure that healthcare remains affordable for Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Preventing Spill-over Effects of Unsustainable Private Insurance Practices into Public Hospital Charges and Keeping Premiums Affordable","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health in light of the Minister's recent remarks on unsustainable private insurance practices (a) what safeguards are being introduced to prevent spill-over effects from such practices into public hospital charges; and (b) how is the Ministry working with insurers to keep premiums affordable while ensuring sufficient coverage.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Public sector care is guided by clinical protocols and value-driven programmes to ensure discipline and prudence. Efforts such as Health Technology Assessments to subsidise only clinically- and cost-effective health technologies and right-siting care from hospitals to the community play major roles in keeping healthcare costs sustainable, which in turn ensure that premiums for MediShield Life remain affordable.
The overly generous coverage of Integrated Shield Plans and Riders are a key distortion to healthcare costs today. They are designed for private healthcare and therefore do not have a significant spillover effect to public healthcare. However, they can indirectly affect public healthcare. If private healthcare becomes too expensive, patients that would have been able to afford private healthcare may instead seek public healthcare, adding to the already heavy workload.
We need to manage the cost escalation of private healthcare, which in turn drives increases in private healthcare insurance premiums. As the Ministry of Health has explained in the oral reply in response to Parliamentary Question Nos 1 to 4 for the Sitting on 24 September 2025, managing private healthcare costs and insurance premiums will require efforts from all stakeholders including doctors, hospitals, insurers and policyholders to unravel the current situation. [Please refer to \"Reviewing Regulatory Framework for Integrated Shield Plans and Assessing Practice of Pre-authorisation\", Official Report, 24 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 4, 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":"Basic Healthcare Sum Adequacy for Singaporeans at Age 65 and Plans to Review Quantum","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) how many Singaporeans have less than the Basic Healthcare Sum at age 65; and (b) whether there are any plans to review the Basic Healthcare Sum.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Basic Healthcare Sum (BHS) is the maximum amount that a Central Provident Fund (CPF) member can accumulate in their MediSave Account. In 2024, 55% of active Singaporean CPF members aged 65 were able to accumulate MediSave monies up to their BHS.
The BHS is reviewed annually to ensure it remains adequate for members' basic healthcare needs from age 65.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on MediSave Adequacy at Age 65 across Income Levels and Proportion of Lower-income Seniors at Risk of Exhausting MediSave Balances","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health whether the Ministry has studied (i) how MediSave adequacy at age 65 differs across income groups and (ii) what is the proportion of lower-income seniors who are likely to exhaust their MediSave balances before the end of life.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: MediSave adequacy depends on individuals' utilisation of MediSave, which can vary greatly depending on one's lifespan and health status. It is not meaningful to study the adequacy picture at age 65 because much of the variation in healthcare needs happens later in life.
Lower-income individuals may save less in their MediSave accounts during their working years. This does not mean that they all have inadequate MediSave, as they also benefit from higher healthcare subsidies. There are also other initiatives to support them to build up their MediSave balances. For example, seniors with lower MediSave balances received a MediSave Bonus this year. They can also benefit from the Matched MediSave Scheme from 2026.
For Singaporeans who have exhausted their MediSave balances and face financial difficulties with healthcare expenses, there are safety nets such as MediFund in place at public healthcare institutions. No one will lose access to appropriate healthcare due to an inability to pay.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Childhood Obesity Rates by Age Group, Ethnicity and Social Income, and Enhancing Measures to Prevent and Reduce Childhood Obesity","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what are the rates of obesity for children (i) under the age of seven, (ii) between seven and 12 and (iii) between 12 and 18; (b) whether there are differences in childhood obesity rates due to ethnicity or social income; and (c) whether the Ministry has any further plan to enhance targeted measures to prevent and reduce childhood obesity.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Based on current available data, in 2024, the proportion of children who are overweight and severely overweight, those with body mass index (BMI)-for-age at or above 90th percentile1, across primary, secondary and pre-university levels is 13%.
The Government continues to monitor the data on obesity for children and have efforts in place to address this issue. This includes Grow Well SG which promotes good nutrition, sleep, screen use and physical activity. Doing these well can help children maintain a healthy weight. Under this strategy, we engage students through lifestyle prescriptions to raise awareness and drive behaviour change. We also support parents with resources and practical tips to cultivate good habits in their children.
Grow Well SG complements initiatives, such as the Health Promotion Board's Healthy Meals in Schools Programme and MOVE IT programmes, and the Ministry of Education's Physical Education lessons to offer a comprehensive approach to obesity prevention. Initiatives such as KidSTART also provide further support to families with fewer resources in early childhood development.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Based on the Anthropometric Study 2002 among 15,000 students aged six to 18 years."],"footNoteQuestions":["24"],"questionNo":"24"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Projected Lifespan of Semakau Landfill and Future Waste Management Solutions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Ms Gho Sze Kee asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the projected lifespan of Semakau Landfill remains valid given current waste generation and recycling trends; and (b) what long-term options exist once Semakau Landfill reaches full capacity even after efforts to extend its lifespan.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Based on current waste disposal rates, Semakau Landfill will reach full capacity around 2035.
In addition to measures and initiatives to promote recycling and reduce waste generation, the National Environment Agency is exploring solutions to repurpose waste residues, such as incineration ash. This includes the recovery and processing of landfilled materials for land reclamation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Designating Rooftop Gardens as No-smoking Areas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Mr Alex Yeo asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry will consider designating all rooftop gardens, including those built above multi-storey car parks and connecting residential blocks within HDB Estates, as no-smoking areas, as these communal common areas serve the same purpose as playgrounds and parks currently designated as no-smoking areas; and (b) if not, what are the reasons.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The National Environment Agency takes a pragmatic approach in identifying smoking-prohibited places, prioritising factors such as high footfall, frequent use by families or enclosed spaces. Smoking is prohibited in common areas within residential buildings, including rooftop gardens located within or connected to residential buildings as these are more likely to be frequented by residents. While smoking is not prohibited on rooftop gardens above multi-storey car parks, my Ministry will consider the Member's suggestion as we continue to review the smoking prohibition regulations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Home-based Food Companies Registered Yearly since COVID-19 and Enforcement of Safety Measures for Home-based Food Businesses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what is the number of home-based food companies registered yearly since the COVID-19 pandemic; and (b) what are the public health, fire and food safety measures put in place to ensure that home-based food businesses including those offering walk-in purchases and dine-in services are upheld.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) does not track the number of home-based food businesses as they are not required to be licensed.
Home-based food businesses are subject to existing food safety regulations to ensure that food sold is safe for consumption. SFA will take enforcement action against home-based food businesses if they are found to be engaged in the sale of unsafe food. As the activities undertaken by home-based food businesses are small-scale, the Singapore Civil Defence Force does not impose additional fire safety requirements beyond what is required in a residential setting.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tracking of and Reviewing Legislation for Domestic Child Abduction Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Ms Diana Pang Li Yen asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry tracks domestic child abduction cases, where one parent unilaterally withholds or removes a child from the other; (b) if not, whether studies will be commissioned; and (c) what measures are in place or planned to provide timely support and intervention for affected children and parents.
29 Ms Diana Pang Li Yen asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry will consider reviewing existing legislation, or introducing new laws, to provide for an expedited process in domestic child abduction cases.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: For child access disputes, including situations where one parent unilaterally withholds or removes a child from the other, parents may seek mediation or counselling to help them reach amicable resolutions. If such methods fail, parents may apply to the Family Justice Courts for child access, or to enforce an access order if there is an existing order and it has been breached.
We have introduced a few changes in recent years to better support parents and children in child access issues. As an upstream intervention, since 1 July 2024, all parents with minor children who are filing for a divorce will need to attend a mandatory co-parenting programme to help them make informed decisions that prioritise their child's well-being as well as to practise cooperative parenting. There are also other programmes to help children cope with their parents' divorce, such as the Children of Divorce Intervention Programme and the Children-in-Between Programme.
Enhanced measures have also been introduced for the Enforcement of Child Access Order where there has been a breach of the child access order. Firstly, the enforcement regime has been broadened to incorporate less confrontational measures including make-up access, compensation of expenses, mandatory counselling, mediation, therapeutic or educational programmes, as well as an execution of a compliance bond. Secondly, the child access enforcement process is simplified as compared to committal proceedings. Parents seeking access may choose to file an application to enforce a child access order instead of bringing contempt proceedings against the care and control parents. These changes have taken effect since 2 January 2025.
There are also no immediate plans to make further changes, including Member's suggestion to provide for an expedited process for child access disputes at this point, in view of the recent enhancements. The Ministry of Social and Family Development will continue to monitor the situation to assess if further enhancements are needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Appropriate Punishment and Rehabilitative Programmes for Young Offenders Convicted for Crimes of Mischief","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Ms Joan Pereira asked (a) how does the Ministry balance appropriate punishment and rehabilitation for young offenders who are convicted for crimes of mischief; and (b) what kind of corrective education or counselling will young offenders receive to prevent them from re-offending.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: In general, the Courts consider various principles such as rehabilitation, deterrence, prevention and retribution, based on factors such as the severity of the offence, the youths' level of maturity and their risk of reoffending. Youths who commit serious offences may be placed on probation or admitted to a youth home, where they undergo structured programmes that combine discipline with education and therapy. Youths who display unruly behaviour or require a higher level of supervision in a more structured environment, may be sent for Reformative Training or may be imprisoned.
As part of their rehabilitation programme, youth offenders participate in programmes tailored to their risks and needs. This includes interventions that build emotional regulation, decision-making and prosocial skills, as well as programmes that strengthen family relationships and positive peer support. Probation officers, social workers and youth home staff work closely with families, schools and community partners to create supportive environments that help sustain the youths' progress after release.
The youth offending rate has remained low, at an average of 5.2 per 1,000 youths from 2019 to 2023. Two-year recidivism rates also remained below 10% from the 2019 cohort to the 2021 cohort. The Ministry of Social and Family Development will continue to collaborate with Government agencies, youth offenders, their families and community partners to keep the offending and reoffending rates low.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Improving Staff-to-children Ratio for MOE-run Kindergartens and Government-supported Preschools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry will consider improving staff-to-children ratio for MOE-run kindergartens and Government-supported preschools, to better support both early childhood educators and parents.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The staff-to-children ratio requirements for Ministry of Education-run kindergartens and Government-supported preschools are minimum requirements to ensure the safety and well-being of children. In practice, kindergartens and preschools can and do operate with more staff than required.
Improving the well-being of early childhood educators goes beyond improving the staff-to-children ratio. The Ministry of Social and Family Development has shared the various measures by the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) to improve educators' well-being and working conditions, in a reply to an earlier Parliamentary Question on 2 July 2024. [Please refer to \"Child Abuse Cases in Preschools and Teacher Support Measures Identified\", Official Report, 2 July 2024, Vol 95, Issue 137, Written Answers to Questions section.]
Measures included removing the requirement for childcare centres to operate on Saturdays from January 2025 and designating Teachers' Day and Children's Day as preschool holidays, on top of six Development Days from 2024 onwards. Since October 2024, ECDA has also appointed relief staff service providers for preschools to tap on, to enable educators to take time off to attend to their personal and professional needs.
ECDA has also introduced various initiatives to better support the professional development of our early childhood educators. Educators and leaders may continue to deepen their skills and competencies and benefit from improved career progression through various available professional development opportunities, such as the Professional Development Programmes and Continuing Professional Development courses, to allow them to have more meaningful careers in the sector.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Monthly Household Income Levels of Families Enrolled in ECDA Childminding Pilot Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for Social and Family Development how many families enrolled in the Early Childhood Development Agency childminding pilot scheme have either a gross monthly household income of below $12,000, or a per capita income of below $3,000 for households with five or more members.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: As the fees charged under the childminding pilot are not means-tested, the Early Childhood Development Agency does not collect income information from parents utilising these services.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Comparison of Infants Enrolled in ECDA Childminding Pilot Scheme versus Centre-based Infant Care Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what proportion of the enrolled infants in the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) childminding pilot are in (i) half-day care and (ii) full-day care; (b) how does this compare to the average enrolment proportions for half-day and full-day care in centre-based infant care services; and (c) how many families have used their Child Development Accounts to pay for childminding services under this pilot.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: More than 80% of infants enrolled in the Early Childhood Development Agency's Childminding Pilot for Infants utilise the full-day service, while almost all infants are enrolled in full-day centre-based infant care.
Of all families enrolled, more than 80% have used their child's Child Development Account monies to defray the cost of childminding services under this pilot.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Online Safety Commission to Better Protect Children from Harmful Content","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Mr Jackson Lam asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information in view of the Ministry's survey which found that only 37% of parents felt confident guiding their children's digital habits (a) whether an update can be provided on the details of the proposed stronger legislation and regulations to safeguard children against online harm; and (b) how the proposed Online Safety Commission will better protect children from harmful content.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Under the Codes of Practice for Online Safety, the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) requires designated app stores to implement age assurance measures by 31 March 2026 to reduce the likelihood of young users under 18 years old accessing and downloading age-inappropriate apps. Designated social media services are already required to apply more stringent content moderation measures for children and provide tools for parents and guardians to manage their children's interactions. Later this year, we will also begin to engage these designated social media services on similar age assurance requirements. This will further enhance online safety for children.
MDDI and the Ministry of Law will also be tabling the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Bill to establish the new Online Safety Commission by the first half of 2026. The Commission is a dedicated agency that will support victims of specified online harms, for example, cyberbullying, including children, to seek timely relief from perpetrators and platforms. For example, the Commission can issue directions to put a stop to the online harm or mitigate and prevent further harm for these victims.
While regulations provide important safeguards, we recognise that parents want more help for their children to develop healthy digital habits and to stay safe online. This is why MDDI and the Infocomm Media Development Authority have been working with the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Social and Family Development, as well as community organisations and industry, to better support parents with information resources and actionable tips. We will also enhance community-based outreach through collaborations with community partners.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Postal and Delivery System Measures and Safeguards against Dangerous Parcel Threats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information whether measures are in place within the postal and delivery system to detect and intercept hazardous, dangerous or organic materials, given the recent cases of such parcels delivered to mosques.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Under the Postal Services Regulations 2008, prohibited postal articles include arms or explosives, hazardous substances, controlled drugs and other dangerous substances.
Screening is done at selective locations, for example, at our borders. SingPost staff are also trained to look out for suspicious signs such as leaks in postal articles. When a suspicious mail is discovered, SingPost's standard procedure is to refer it to the Police and the Singapore Civil Defence Force, who will respond to assess the threat, and contain it if necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Digital Parenting Survey's Representation of Resident Parent Population's Income Levels","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Ministry's inaugural Digital Parenting Survey is representative of our Singapore resident parent population in terms of income levels; and (b) if not, why not.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The sample of respondents for the Digital Parenting Survey is representative of the national proportions of parents in Singapore by gender, age and race. We are unable to determine representativeness by parents' income levels because such data is not made available through this survey.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Usage Statistics by Age Group for Borrow-n-Deliver Pilot Programme and Plans to Further Promote Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"37 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) how many (i) book loans and (ii) book deliveries have been made since the launch of Borrow-n-Deliver pilot; (b) what was the breakdown of borrowers by age group; and (c) what will the National Library Board be doing to promote greater use of this scheme.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The National Library Board (NLB) launched Borrow-n-Deliver as a pilot service in 2023. Since then, it has fulfilled more than 5,000 orders, which involved more than 11,000 books loaned out. The largest percentage of borrowers are in the 40 to 49 years age group, followed by 30 to 39 years.
NLB is exploring collaborations with partners to create more awareness for the services. As part of its 30th anniversary celebrations, NLB has also extended a one-time complimentary Borrow-n-Deliver service for eligible patrons.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Subscription Numbers for Little Book Box Service and Plans to Improve Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"
38 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what is the current number of subscribers to the National Library Board's 'Little Book Box' service; (b) how many have opted for the mother tongue option; (c) whether the numbers are in line with the target or below expectations; and (d) if below expectations, what are the plans to improve the scheme.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Subscriptions for the National Library Board's (NLB's) \"The Little Book Box\" service are based on a quarterly cycle, with each subscription period lasting three months. In the current October to December 2025 cycle, 870 subscribers have signed up for the service. Of these, 85% have opted to receive books in both English and their selected Mother Tongue Language. NLB has received positive feedback on the service.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Standardising Bullying Incidents Management and Implementation across Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"39 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the Ministry's operational definition of bullying, distinct from hurtful behaviour, fights or one-off comments; (b) whether this definition is standardised and implemented across all schools; and (c) if so, how are incidents consistently classified, recorded, and addressed.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Ministry of Education (MOE) and schools take a firm stance against all forms of hurtful behaviours. Bullying involves persistent and intentional hurtful acts, while other hurtful behaviours include once-off insensitive comments and physical fights. Bullying can take on various forms, including verbal, social, physical and cyber. This understanding guides schools in managing different forms of hurtful behaviours.
MOE provides schools with guidelines to formulate their discipline policies and school rules based on the student profile and needs. Schools adopt a tiered approach for disciplinary measures based on the severity of each case. Such measures range from reflection for careless remarks to detention or suspension for more serious cases and to caning for boys in egregious cases.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Classroom Instruction Hours versus Total Working Hours for Teachers and Initiatives to Reduce Administrative Workload in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"40 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Minister for Education (a) for each year over the past five years, what has been the average number of weekly classroom instruction hours and total working hours by teachers; and (b) whether details can be provided on any quantitative targets or tracked outcomes of initiatives to reduce teachers' administrative workload.
Mr Desmond Lee: Over the past five years, the work hours that our teachers have reported during term time has remained stable at an average of 53 hours per week1. Of these, about 14 hours are spent on classroom teaching, while the remaining time is spent on activities, such as small group consultations, lesson preparation, co-curricular activities and professional development. These activities are critical to their effectiveness and provide a holistic education for our students.
Over the years, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has streamlined processes and used technology to reduce administrative work. For instance, teachers now use Parents Gateway, a digital platform to obtain consent from and to disseminate information to parents. Beyond using technology, MOE has deployed a dedicated team of administrative staff in each school to handle general administrative matters, procurement, financial operations as well as logistics support. Today, teachers spend four hours per week on administrative work, down from five hours per week in 2021. MOE will continue to streamline work and leverage technology including artificial intelligence solutions, to help our teachers manage their workload.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : The Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2024, which reported that teachers in Singapore work 47 hours per week, surveyed a representative sample of lower secondary teachers. MOE’s data is based on all teachers across all levels in Government and Government-aided schools."],"footNoteQuestions":["40"],"questionNo":"40"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Smart Facilities Management System on School Staff in Facilities Management and Potential Re-employment Support","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"41 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the upcoming Smart Facilities Management (SFM) system for all mainstream and special education schools will result in any redundancies for staff in facilities management roles; and (b) if so, what plans are in place to help these staff with re-employment opportunities.
Mr Desmond Lee: The implementation of Smart Facilities Management (FM) in our schools is intended to support facilities management officers (FMO) in their daily operational works, rather than replace them.
Smart FM enables the FMO to centrally monitor critical infrastructure and utility consumption real-time, without manual inspections and physical collation of utility reports. This will allow for more timely and data driven decisions to be taken. For example, through data analysis, the FMO can determine whether an equipment is due for servicing. It also reduces the volume of physically demanding and repetitive manual tasks and serves to benefit our ageing workforce.
Change management is part and parcel of the Smart FM transition. We will be onboarding the FMO onto the new system and will provide training to upskill and reskill them.
Smart FM will enhance the overall building performance through predictive maintenance and energy optimisation. In doing so, we will improve the experience of students and teachers in the school environment.
","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 Strategic Partnership Co-curricular Activity and Potential for Cluster-based Programme Development","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"42 Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the take up rate for the Strategic Partnership Co-Curricular Activity (SP-CCA) in this year and the last; (b) whether the Ministry is considering adding more training locations, similar to how SP-CCA Athletics has two training locations; and (c) whether the Ministry is also encouraging cluster-based CCAs.
Mr Desmond Lee: Jointly offered by the Ministry of Education (MOE) and the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY), Strategic Partnership Co-Curricular Activity (SP-CCA) allows secondary students from different schools to come together to pursue their interest in sports beyond what is offered at their schools.
In 2025, there are 232 students from 86 schools in the three SP-CCAs: athletics, water polo and canoeing. In 2024, athletics and water polo were the only available SP-CCAs and they had in total 139 students from 64 schools. The SP-CCA will expand to include hockey next year.
The current training venues are adequate for the number of participating students. MOE will work with MCCY and Sport Singapore to explore additional training venues if needed.
Schools may also initiate cluster-based CCAs to offer students access to a wider range of CCAs. MOE is supportive of these school-initiated partnerships, which cater to students' diverse strengths and interests while providing opportunities to forge new friendships.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Financial Assistance for Next-of-kin Without Lasting Power of Attorney","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"43 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for Law what assistance is available to families, particularly those facing financial hardship in cases where the next-of-kin are unable to manage essential matters on behalf of their loved ones due to the absence of a Lasting Power of Attorney.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The Legal Aid Bureau (LAB), a department in the Ministry of Law, provides legal aid to Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents who satisfy a means test and a merits test. This legal aid covers civil matters including deputyship applications for cases where there is an absence of a Lasting Power of Attorney.
There are two types of deputyship applications: standard and simplified applications. For standard applications, LAB can provide legal representation to eligible applicants. For simplified applications, applicants can generally file the applications themselves using the Family Justice Courts' iFAMs system. If necessary, LAB can assist eligible applicants who are not digitally savvy.
Individuals who are not eligible for Government legal aid schemes may seek legal advice at the Community Law Centres by Pro Bono SG, as well as various legal clinics across Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Trends on Duration to Exit Bankruptcy from 2010 to 2025 and Possible Review of Bankruptcy Laws","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"44 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Law (a) what is the average and median time taken for Singaporeans to exit bankruptcy between (i) 2010 and 2015, (ii) 2016 and 2020 and (iii) 2020 and 2025; (b) how do the figures differ if we only considered first-time bankrupts; and (c) whether a review of Singapore's bankruptcy laws is due since the last round of significant reforms in 2015.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The mean and median times taken for Singaporeans and Singapore Permanent Residents to be annulled and discharged from bankruptcy between (a) 2010 and 2015, (b) 2016 and 2020, and (c) 2020 and 2025 are tabulated below. The median and mean durations in bankruptcy have come down in the latest five-year period.
There is negligible difference in the mean and median times when repeat bankrupts are excluded.
The 2015 reforms, which introduced the Differentiated Discharge Framework, came into force on 1 August 2016. In 2023, we transited to a regime where all new bankruptcies now come under the administration of private trustees, except where there is a public interest reason for the Official Assignee to consent to act as trustee.
The Debt Repayment Scheme is currently being reviewed to prevent its misuse, particularly by debtors who may be guided by third-party consulting firms to borrow irresponsibly, and subsequently apply for bankruptcy.
The Ministry of Law will continue to work with stakeholders to maintain a rehabilitative bankruptcy regime that balances the interests of debtors and creditors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Target Contribution Payment Rates among Discharged Bankrupts from 2010 to 2020","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"45 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Law (a) what number and percentage of discharged bankrupts between (i) 2010 and 2015, (ii) 2016 and 2020 and (iii) 2020 and 2025 paid their Target Contributions in full prior to discharge; (b) among these bankrupts, what is the average and median time spent in bankruptcy over those time periods; and (c) whether the formula to calculate Target Contributions is adequate.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: As the concept of target contribution was introduced in August 2016 as part of the Differentiated Discharge Framework (DDF), the figures provided relate only to cases that come under the DDF.
The target contribution is fixed as a multiple of the monthly contribution, being either 52 months of monthly contribution for first-time bankrupts or 76 months of monthly contribution for repeat bankrupts. The monthly contribution is in turn determined in accordance with statutory criteria that take into account the bankrupt's income or earning ability, and allowances for reasonable expenses. The Ministry of Law regularly reviews the bankruptcy regime to balance the interests of debtors and creditors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Migrant Domestic Worker Safety Incidents, Enforcement Actions against Employers or Agencies and Statistics on Insurance Claims in Last Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"46 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Manpower for each of the last five years (a) what is the (i) number and types of migrant domestic worker safety incidents including falls from height; (ii) number of enforcement actions against employers or agencies; (iii) uptake rate of safety briefings and orientation; and (b) whether the Ministry has data on insurance claim statistics and, if so, what are the average payouts and common causes.
Dr Tan See Leng: Between 2020 and 2024, there were an average of 35 safety incidents involving migrant domestic workers (MDWs) each year. In addition to falls from height, this includes other breaches such as unsafe use of ladders and windows cleaning. Enforcement actions were taken against all employers involved. Over the same period, a total of three employment agencies (EAs) were taken to task for failing to ensure the signing of safety agreements between employers and their MDWs.
All first-time employers and first-time MDWs must attend mandatory orientation programmes that cover essential safety practices. For instance, at the Employers' Orientation Programme (EOP) attended by first-time employers, safety guidelines pertaining to hanging laundry and cleaning windows are emphasised. First-time MDWs receive hands-on training at their Settling-In-Programme (SIP) on safe window cleaning and laundry hanging processes, as well as fall prevention strategies for high-rise homes. Employment agencies (EAs) must also explain the Ministry of Manpower's (MOM's) safety requirements to employers and MDWs and ensure that they sign a safety agreement prior to the MDWs' deployment.
MOM does not track MDW insurance claim statistics and payouts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Support Families of Workplace Death Victims and Plans to Regulate Provision of Financial, Legal and Psychological Assistance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"
47 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how does the Ministry ensure that employers provide adequate support measures to the families of workplace death victims; and (b) whether the Ministry plans to introduce new regulations to ensure families of workplace death victims receive appropriate financial, legal and psychological assistance.
Dr Tan See Leng: Under the Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA), the next of kin (NOK) of a worker who dies from a work-related incident can receive lump-sum compensation of up to $225,000, without having to file a civil suit under common law. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) regularly reviews the compensation limits under WICA to ensure that they keep pace with inflation, wage increases and healthcare costs. The compensation limit for death will increase to $269,000 from 1 November 2025.
Employers who fail to provide WICA compensation can be fined up to $15,000 or face an imprisonment term of up to 12 months, or both. If there are legitimate reasons why an employer is unable to provide compensation, the Ministry of Manpower will assist the NOK using the Workers' Fund.
If deceased workers' NOK require assistance beyond the compensation under WICA, they can access different support services across the Government depending on their circumstances, needs and eligibility. Those needing support for basic living expenses may approach our Social Service Offices. For legal advice and/or representation, NOK can approach the Legal Aid Bureau or the Community Law Centres by Pro Bono SG, as well as various legal clinics across Singapore. Those requiring psychological support can tap on the national mindline 1771 and counselling services operated by trained professionals from the Institute of Mental Health, as well as community mental health teams located islandwide.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Jobseeker Support Scheme's Income Ceiling to Match Current 75th Percentile Gross Monthly Income Levels","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"48 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the current 75th percentile gross monthly income from employment of full-time employed residents (i) including employer CPF contributions and (ii) excluding employer CPF contributions, respectively; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider raising the Jobseeker Support Scheme's $5000 qualifying income ceiling to the current 75th percentile gross monthly income excluding employer CPF contributions to support more Singaporeans involuntarily unemployed.
Dr Tan See Leng: In 2024, the 75th percentile gross monthly income from employment of full-time employed residents is about $8,100 excluding employer Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions and about $9,300 including employer CPF contributions. Employer CPF contributions are excluded when determining the income threshold for the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support (JS) scheme.
The JS scheme targets lower- to middle-income workers who are more likely to face financial constraints that may lead them to settle quickly for ill-fitting jobs after becoming involuntarily unemployed. The scheme therefore covers involuntarily unemployed jobseekers who previously earned an average gross monthly income of up to $5,000, excluding employer CPF, in the past 12 months. This threshold slightly exceeds the median income of full-time employed residents in 2024, which is about $4,900, excluding employer CPF.
Since the JS scheme is still in its early days, the Ministry of Manpower will review the effectiveness of the scheme in helping workers re-enter employment and find good jobs. We will also assess the case for extending the scheme to higher-earning individuals.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enhancing Worker Transport Safety on Roads and at Work Sites","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"49 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Minister for Manpower how will the Ministry enhance worker transport safety on the roads and at work sites, in view of workplace deaths involving vehicles.
Dr Tan See Leng: Work-related vehicular incidents comprise traffic accidents on public roads where the victim was at work and accidents within workplaces where the victim was struck by a vehicle.
The Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Act obliges employers to ensure safe use of vehicles. Vehicle owners must maintain their vehicles properly and operators must possess relevant qualifications. In addition, the WSH Council has published various guidelines that give practical guidance on proper traffic management plans, safe operation of forklifts and trucks and fatigue management.
The Ministry of Manpower also encourages vehicles owners to adopt technology to prevent vehicular incidents, with funding via the Productivity Solutions Grant for local SMEs. For instance, companies can deploy cameras or sensors on their vehicles to warn drivers of collision risks, as well as detect signs of driver fatigue or distraction.
In addition to the work-related vehicular incidents captured in WSH statistics, workers may also be exposed to safety risks while commuting or being transported to work. The Ministry of Transport leads efforts to improve the transportation safety of workers through a multi-pronged approach. This includes reducing the need to transport workers, encouraging alternatives to lorries for worker transport, and making it safer for those who still need to be ferried using lorries.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Support for Stay-at-home Mothers in Retirement Adequacy and Career Development","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"50 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Minister for Manpower what additional support can the Government provide for stay-at-home mothers in areas, such as retirement adequacy, training access and pathways back to the workforce.
Dr Tan See Leng: Stay-at-home mothers can tap on a suite of employment facilitation and reskilling initiatives to return to the workforce, including Workforce Singapore's (WSG's) HerCareer initiative for women jobseekers. For example, stay-at-home mothers seeking to return to work can obtain career advisory and employment facilitation support from WSG and NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute. They can also tap on the Career Conversion Programmes which support mid-career conversions, including to job roles with flexi-load arrangements that better meet the needs of individuals with caregiving responsibilities.
Stay-at-home mothers with lower retirement savings can also benefit from a range of measures that supplement their Central Provident Fund savings and retirement income in their senior years. These measures include the Matched Retirement Savings Scheme and Silver Support Scheme which were recently enhanced in January 2025.
The Government will continue to review our measures for caregivers, including stay-at-home mothers, to ensure they are supported throughout different stages of life.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mandatory Safety Protocols and Training Regarding High-risk Tasks Provided to Migrant Domestic Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"51 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what are the current mandatory safety protocols and training that employment agencies and/or employers must provide to migrant domestic workers concerning high-risk tasks before they commence work; and (b) whether the Ministry will review these protocols for adequacy.
Dr Tan See Leng: All first-time Migrant Domestic Workers (MDWs) are required to attend the Settling-In Programme (SIP) before commencing work in Singapore. At the SIP, MDWs are taught how to perform common household tasks safely, especially when cleaning windows and hanging laundry at high-rise buildings. The training is conducted in their native languages and materials are reviewed regularly to ensure relevance. The SIP training material was recently reviewed in May 2025 and we will monitor the impact of the latest round of changes before embarking on further reviews.
In addition, all new MDW employers are required to attend the Employers' Orientation Programme which emphasises their roles and responsibilities in providing a safe work environment. Employers are also required to sign a safety agreement with their MDWs to ensure that they would comply with the Ministry of Manpower's restrictions on cleaning the exterior of window panes.
Prior to working in Singapore, employment agencies would also arrange for MDWs to undergo training, covering safety practices for common household tasks.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress in Implementing FWAs for Employees with Caregiving Responsibilities and Establishing System to Recognise Primary Caregivers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"52 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what progress has been made in encouraging private companies to implement flexible work arrangements for employees with caregiving responsibilities; (b) how many companies currently provide dedicated caregiving leave; and (c) whether the Ministry will establish a system to recognise primary caregivers, enabling them to seek caregiving-related leave or flexible arrangements from employers.
Dr Tan See Leng: Based on a 2024 survey conducted by the Ministry of Manpower, 72.5% of private companies1 offered at least one type of scheduled flexible work arrangement2 (FWA) for their employees. This is an increase from 68.0% in 2023. To support caregivers in accessing FWAs, the Government and tripartite partners launched the Tripartite Guidelines on FWA Requests in 2024, which set out the process for employees to formally request for FWAs and employers to consider them.
To support employees in their caregiving needs, employers are required by law to provide paid maternity, paternity, childcare leave and unpaid infant care leave. Some employers also voluntarily offer additional leave to employees with caregiving needs. In 2024, 6,100 (36.1%) private companies voluntarily provided additional paid family care leave3, while 5,800 (34.0%) provided additional paid child sick leave4.
We recognise the importance of enabling caregivers to access caregiving-related leave and FWAs. We encourage employers and employees to discuss and mutually agree on suitable arrangements, rather than rely on a system to verify the caregiver status of employees. We will continue to review the support available for caregivers in the workplace.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Data pertains to private companies each with at least 25 employees, and to permanent employees and employees on term contract of at least one year.","2 : Scheduled FWAs refer to FWAs that are pre-arranged and consist of part-time work, flexi-hours, staggered hours, teleworking for an extended period of time, homeworking, job sharing and compressed work week.","3 : Paid Family Care Leave refers to leave granted to employees for taking care of their family members, for example, parents, step-parents, parents-in-law, children, spouse, or to accompany them for medical appointments when they are sick or when the main caregiver is not available.","4 : Medical Certificate (MC) required."],"footNoteQuestions":["52"],"questionNo":"52"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress Update on Enhancing Detection and Treatment of Occupational Diseases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"53 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Manpower for an update on the progress of the Ministry's efforts to enhance measures for (a) earlier detection of Occupational Diseases (OD); and (b) diagnosis, classification and treatment of OD cases.
Dr Tan See Leng: To enhance early detection, diagnosis and treatment of Occupational Diseases (ODs), the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has: (a) increased the number of workplaces placed under our proactive health surveillance programme from 1,200 in 2020 to 3,500 in 2025 to better support OD prevention among workers who are at risk; (b) updated the Workplace Safety and Health Guidelines for Diagnosis and Management of ODs to provide doctors with further guidance on the detection, diagnosis and appropriate treatment for ODs; (c) included all occupational infectious diseases in healthcare, research facilities and laboratory settings and all work-related musculoskeletal disorders as reportable and compensable ODs with effect from 1 December 2025; and (d) simplified the reporting process for doctors at the primary care level to facilitate earlier detection and interventions.
MOM will continue to work closely with the Ministry of Health, the National Trades Union Congress, medical practitioners and industry partners in the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Health to enhance the detection and management of ODs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Investigations on Fatal Wall Collapse at Toh Close on 17 September 2025 and Review of Current Safety Requirements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"54 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether investigations have identified any safety lapses that contributed to the fatal wall collapse incident at Toh Close on 17 September 2025; and (b) whether the current safety requirements for wall and excavation works remain adequate.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM), together with the Building and Construction Authority (BCA), is investigating the fatal incident. As investigations are ongoing, MOM is currently unable to provide further details on the cause of the incident.
Based on an inspection by BCA and the project's Qualified Person, there are no structural safety concerns for the surrounding buildings. BCA has also instructed the Qualified Person to implement measures to stabilise the affected retaining wall before any further work can commence.
Current safety requirements already mandate that contractors check the integrity of surrounding structures and provide adequate shoring to prevent collapse during construction work. After the investigations have concluded, MOM and the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Council will share the key learning points and recommendations for companies to adopt to prevent similar incidents. MOM will also review whether any additional safety measures are required beyond those set out in the existing WSH (Construction) Regulations and Approved Codes of Practice.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Disincentives for Commerical Property Vacancies and Enhancing Transparency of Retail Market Data","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"55 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Government's position that property vacancies are adequately deterred by market-based disincentives such as holding costs and forgone income applies similarly across (i) different commercial property types, such as shophouses, strata retail, and older malls and (ii) is different for residential developers; and (b) what is the vacancy percentage or duration threshold above which the Government will intervene.
56 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Minister for National Development whether the Government can make freely available more localised retail rental data at the unit-level, similar to residential transaction data, in order to provide tenants with more clarity for business planning and renewal negotiations.
57 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Minister for National Development whether the Government can publish retail rent and vacancy trends on a monthly basis at a more granular level (i) by URA Planning Area, (ii) across different property types such as shophouses, centrally-managed malls, strata retail, HDB sold shops, and (iii) by property sizes, to better inform public discourse.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Vacancy rates for commercial and residential properties have generally remained stable over the past three years. Landlords of both commercial and residential properties are unlikely to leave their properties vacant for too long, given the costs and forgone rental income of doing so.
The Government considers a variety of factors when assessing the state of the commercial and residential market, including property market indicators, as well as the broader economic outlook. Focusing solely on vacancy rates may not be appropriate as they can vary across property segments and over time due to cyclical shifts in demand.
The Urban Redevelopment Authority publishes detailed rental data every quarter by geographical location and property type, as well as information on vacant commercial properties by geographical location. This helps the public and businesses to make more informed leasing or business decisions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Guidelines for Approval of Renovation Works for Older HDB Flats to Ensure Structural Integrity and Prevent Damages","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"58 Ms Gho Sze Kee asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether there is a different set of criteria or requirements for approving renovation works for older HDB flats, particularly hacking works to ensure structural integrity and prevent damage to adjoining units including those above and below; and (b) if not, whether the Ministry will consider introducing them.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) applies the same structural safety standards and approval process for renovation works across all HDB flats, regardless of age.
To ensure structural integrity and safety, contractors must obtain HDB's approval before commencing any renovation works that may affect the structure of the flat. HDB will evaluate the proposed works and may include site-specific conditions in the permit where needed, such as imposing limits on the extent a particular wall can be removed.
In addition, such renovation works can only be done by contractors listed in the Directory of Renovation Contractors (DRC). DRC contractors must only deploy workers who have been trained by the Building and Construction Authority Academy to carry out demolition or hacking of walls in HDB flats.
HDB has no plans to introduce a different set of criteria for renovation works for older flats, as the current assessment approach is sufficiently robust.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Guidelines on Noise Allowance Standards and Installing Safety Enhancements and Sound Dampeners at Communal Sports Facilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"59 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for National Development with regard to the rise of pickleball playing in HDB estates (a) whether guidelines will be developed on community noise allowance standards on such high impact ball sports; and (b) whether a study can be convened to convert HDB communal sports facilities such as badminton courts to more multi-purpose facilities with safety enhancements and sound dampeners.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: This question was addressed in the reply to the question asked by Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim on 25 September 2025. [Please refer to \"Guidelines for Pickleball Play in HDB Public Courts Given Its Rising Popularity and Potential Noise Disamenities\", Official Report, 25 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 5, 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 Flat Application Status Following Death of Sole Citizen Parent Over Past Five Years and Appeal Mechanisms Available","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"60 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for National Development (a) over the past five years, how many HDB flat applications involving a minor Singaporean child were cancelled after the death of the sole citizen parent with a breakdown down by (i) before unit selection, (ii) after selection but before key collection and (iii) after key collection; and (b) what compassionate appeal mechanism exists for the surviving Permanent Resident parent.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) takes a compassionate approach towards changes in family structure due to the demise of a parent. A key consideration is the welfare of any surviving minor Singapore Citizen (SC) child or children. If this takes place after key collection, a surviving Singapore Permanent Resident parent is eligible to retain the flat with his/her SC child.
For all other cases, HDB will assess how to best assist the family on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the specific circumstances of each family. This could involve allowing the flat to be held in trust by a trustee, on the condition that the flat be transferred to the SC child when he or she reaches 21 years old.
The data that the Member requested for is not available, as HDB does not track \"death of a sole SC parent\" as one of the reasons for flat cancellation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of BTO Flat Launches by Flat Type in 2025 to 2027 and over Last Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"61 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development what is the breakdown by flat-type for the number of BTO flats to be launched in (i) each of 2025, 2026 and 2027 and (ii) each year over the last five years.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The breakdown by flat type of Build-To-Order (BTO) flats launched from 2020 to 2025 is as follows:
*The 2025 figures include the indicative supply of each flat type to be launched in the October 2025 BTO exercise. The exact supply will be shared during the launch of the sales exercise.
More information on the 2026 and 2027 BTO supply will be shared when ready. We will continue to monitor the housing market closely and calibrate BTO supply to meet the housing needs of Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Neighbour Dispute Cases in Tampines HDB Town and Effectiveness of Community Relations Unit since April 2025","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"62 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many neighbour dispute cases have been reported in Tampines HDB town since April 2025; (b) how effective has the Community Relations Unit (CRU) been since its pilot launch in April 2025; (c) what is the criteria used to determine whether a case is taken up by CRU; and (d) whether the nationwide rollout of CRU can be brought forward.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: This question was addressed in the reply to the questions asked by Mr Kenneth Tiong and Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik on 14 October 2025. [Please refer to \"Criteria that Qualify for Intervention by Community Relations Unit and Unit's Effectiveness in Addressing Neighbourly Disputes\", Official Report, 14 October 2025, Vol 96, Issue 7, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
63 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry monitors their frequency and severity of recurring water leakages in HDB flats; (b) what measures does HDB have in place to address persistent cases; and (c) what long-term solutions are planned to address this issue.\n
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Water seepage may occur in the Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats due to wear and tear over time. Flat owners and Town Councils (TCs) are responsible for the maintenance of the interior of flats and external walls respectively. HDB assists residents and TCs to address complex and recurring cases.
For example, HDB supports the TCs by carrying out joint inspections and providing technical advice on necessary tests or repairs. In addition, for flat owners who need assistance, HDB co-pays 50% of the repair cost through the Goodwill Repair Assistance scheme, with the remaining 50% shared equally between the upper- and lower-floor flat owners.
HDB is currently studying the use of technologies, such as microwave scanning, which can scan through concrete to detect and trace sources of seepage. This can help flat owners and TCs to more effectively diagnose and resolve complex water seepage cases upfront.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of BTO and Sales of Balance Flats by Applicant Category over Past 10 Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"64 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development for BTO flats and Sale of Balance flats that have been launched in each year over the last 10 years, whether a breakdown can be provided of the number of flats allocated to (i) seniors, (ii) first-timer families, (iii) first-timer singles and (iv) second-timer families, categorised by 2-room flexi flats, 3-room flats and larger flats.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Tables 1 and 2 show the number1 of successful Build-To-Order (BTO) and Sale of Balance Flats (SBF) applicants respectively, from 2015 to 2024.
65 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) what is the average daily number of foreign-registered vehicles by type (motorcycles, cars, vans and lorries) entering Singapore; (b) what percentage of the total vehicle population this represents; (c) whether there are plans to regulate such vehicles for daily commuting; and (d) how the transport network, including the Johor-Singapore Rapid Transit Link, can be enhanced to reduce demand.\n
Mr Jeffrey Siow: On average, about 77,000 foreign-registered vehicles entered Singapore daily in 2024, of which 82% are motorcycles. This is about 8% of our local vehicle population.
All foreign-registered cars and motorcycles entering Singapore must obtain a Vehicle Entry Permit (VEP), and all ASEAN goods vehicles must obtain an Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Goods Vehicle Permit (GVP) from the Land Transport Authority. Each permit is tied to the vehicle's road tax and insurance and is valid for up to one year, and six months for VEP and GVP respectively.
As an alternative to private vehicles, the Rapid Transit System (RTS) Link will provide a more seamless travel experience. There will be co-located Customs, Immigration and Quarantine facilities at both stations, allowing commuters to clear immigration at the point of departure only. The RTS Link station at Woodlands will be directly connected to Woodlands North Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station on the Thomson-East Coast Line to allow convenient access to and from the MRT network.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Development Plans for Changi Airport Terminal 5","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"66 Mr Darryl David asked the Acting Minister for Transport whether the Ministry can provide an update on the construction and development plans for Changi Airport Terminal 5 (T5), particularly regarding (i) timelines for key deliverables and (ii) whether T5 will be connected to the other terminals at Changi Airport.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The construction and development of Changi Airport Terminal 5 (T5) is on track to be completed in the mid-2030s. The groundbreaking ceremony for T5 was held in May 2025 and contracts for tunnels, airfield and substructure works were awarded in the first half of 2025. Other tenders including the above-ground construction for T5 and the ground transportation centre will be awarded in the coming years.
T5 will be connected to T2 via an underground automated people mover system and baggage handling system to facilitate seamless transfers between T5 and the existing terminals.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Installations of Red-Amber-Green Arrows at Traffic Junctions by Year End, and Potential Elimination of Discretionary Right Turns","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"67 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Acting Minister for Transport whether (a) the Ministry can provide an update on the installation of Red-Amber-Green (RAG) arrows at traffic junctions; (b) the Ministry is on track to install the planned 200 additional RAG arrows by the end of this year; and (c) it would be viable to eliminate all discretionary right turns on our roads by the end of this decade.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) is close to completing the planned 200 additional Red-Amber-Green (RAG) arrows at signalised junctions. By end-2025, there would be around 1,400 RAG arrows, covering almost all signalised traffic junctions island-wide.
The remaining signalised junctions where RAG arrows will not be installed mostly have a single right-turn lane with only one lane of oncoming traffic. LTA will review the need and feasibility for RAG arrows at these signalised junctions when there are road developments and upgrading.
68 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) in each of the past six years, how many drone incursions have occurred at Singapore's aerodromes; (b) how many resulted in flight disruptions or diversions; (c) whether any were found to be national security threats; (d) what actions were taken to counter these incursions; and (e) how effective are Singapore's current counter-drone capabilities in preventing and countering such incursions.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: To date, two drone incursions have occurred at Changi Airport – both took place in 2019 and resulted in flight delays and diversions. There was no evidence to suggest that these drone incursions were national security threats. There were no drone incursions at Seletar Airport over the past six years.
The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) adopts a multi-layered approach comprising regulations, education, and enforcement, to ensure the safe and responsible use of drones. For example, to ensure aviation safety around the aerodromes, CAAS has imposed a five-kilometre no-fly zone for drones around each of Singapore's aerodromes and works with the Citizens' Consultative Committees in nearby areas to educate residents on the no-fly zones. CAAS also works closely with the airport operator and other Government agencies, such as the Singapore Police Force, Singapore Armed Forces, Defence Science and Technology Agency and Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore to promptly detect, identify and neutralise unlawful drones.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Private Heavy Vehicle Parking Lots Not Accessible to Public","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"69 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Acting Minister for Transport in respect of the approximate 30,900 private heavy vehicle (HV) parking lots (a) what is the number of such lots registered to licence holders which indicated in their applications to operate a HV parking lot that they do not allow the public to enquire about parking space availability; and (b) how many HVs are registered to such licence holders.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Heavy Vehicle Park (HVP) licence holders have the discretion to manage the allocation of vehicle parking certificates for their parking lots. About 90% of private heavy vehicle parking lots meant for heavy vehicles, or about 27,000 are not available for public enquiry on lot availability. HVP licence holders may or may not directly own heavy vehicle.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[{"annexureID":2812,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 1","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20251014/annex-Annex 1.pdf","fileName":"Annex 1.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":2813,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 2","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20251014/annex-Annex 2.pdf","fileName":"Annex 2.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":2814,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 3","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20251014/annex-Annex 3.pdf","fileName":"Annex 3.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":2815,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 4","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20251014/annex-Annex 4.pdf","fileName":"Annex 4.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null}],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":6739,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Joan Pereira","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20251014/vernacular-Joan Pereira Transport 14Oct2025 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Joan Pereira Transport 14Oct2025 -Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}