1 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Acting Minister for Transport what considerations have been put in place to ensure that Singaporean taxi and private hire drivers' livelihoods are safeguarded even if more licences are made available to Malaysian cross-border services upon review of the Cross Border Taxi Scheme.
2 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry is looking into facilitating more point-to-point (P2P) transfers between Singapore and Johor Bahru given the setting up of Johor-Singapore Economic Zone; and (b) if so, how will the Ministry safeguard the livelihood of Singapore P2P drivers given the large cost disparity of driving Malaysian-registered and Singapore-registered vehicles.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Acting Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 1 to 2 in today’s Order Paper together, please?
\tMr Speaker: Go ahead.
Ms Sun Xueling: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has been conducting enforcement operations against illegal point-to-point (P2P) services. Since July this year, the LTA has impounded 107 vehicles whose drivers were caught providing illegal services.
We recognise that there is demand from commuters for more convenient cross-border P2P services. The Ministry of Transport (MOT) and LTA have been exploring options to enhance the existing arrangements. For instance, under the Cross Border Taxi Scheme, we are discussing with Malaysia possible options to liberalise the scheme, including to allow Malaysian cross-border taxis to drop off passengers anywhere in Singapore, and Singaporean taxis to do likewise in Johor Bahru. This will provide greater convenience to commuters from both countries.
To minimise foreign taxis cruising around empty and potentially carrying out illegal trips, these foreign taxis would only be allowed to pick up passengers at designated points so that they do not infringe into the local P2P market. However, for the convenience of commuters, we will identify more pick-up points in both Johor Bahru and Singapore. We will discuss options with the Malaysian authorities on a reciprocal basis.
We will continue to engage the National Taxi Association (NTA) and the National Private Hire Vehicles Association (NPHVA) to take in their suggestions.
We are also exploring using location tracking, including ERP 2.0, and other measures to prevent illegal trips by cross-border taxis within Singapore.
LTA will continue its enforcement efforts even after enhancements to the existing arrangements are rolled out.
Mr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
\tMs Yeo Wan Ling (Punggol): Thank you, Speaker. I declare I am the adviser to NTA and NPHVA. Given the deep social and economic ties between Singapore and Malaysia, our drivers have expressed through the associations that they are excited that the calls to review and update the current Cross Border Taxi Scheme are being looked into. Ensuring that the scheme remains relevant as consumption patterns change is critical, as this is a livelihood stream for 200 of our Singapore cross-border drivers.
With the programme being updated, and I have taken note of the Senior Minister of State's response, with the increasing demands for P2P drop-offs, how will the Ministry use technology such as online booking platforms and in-vehicle tracking units to ensure that there is fair competition between Singapore-licensed and Malaysian-licensed vehicles, noting that there are fare and exchange rate differences? Also, more importantly, how will the Ministry look to expanding the scheme to allow our drivers broader earning opportunities?
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. Indeed, there is a lot of unmet demand from commuters who would like to travel more frequently across the border. We have families with children, families with the elderly, families who want to visit relatives in Johor Bahru. They want to do shopping trips. They want to go on short holidays. So, it is under these conditions that we are looking at how to enhance the current Cross Border Taxi Scheme.
The Member had some questions with regard to the use of technology. We see that some of our taxi operators have already rolled out online booking forms, phone calls as well, to facilitate doorstep pick-up in Singapore. At the same time, I have shared that we can make use of the installation of the on-board unit (OBU), especially on foreign taxis, in order to enhance location tracking. And not to forget our platform operators, the ride-hail platform operators, also have technology platforms that they can use to enhance location tracking.
So, these are ways in which we can ensure that foreign vehicles are not conducting illegal P2P trips in Singapore.
The second question she had was with regard to fares. When it comes to fares, we will have discussions with the NTA as well as the NPHVA to understand what are the reasonable fares we should be looking at to enhance cross-border trips. We know that there are cost disparities between the cost of operating as well as driving in Singapore versus Johor Bahru, so, we will take this into consideration when setting fares.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast-Jurong West): Thank you, Speaker. Thank you, Senior Minister of State Sun for the comprehensive reply. Before I go on, let me declare I am the CEO of Strides Premier, a company that provides cross-border taxi service as well.
I have a few supplementary questions. First of all, what is the plan that LTA has to expand the fleet of 200 cross-border taxis to more, and whether it will allow the application by a taxi driver on a monthly basis, rather than restrict it to once a year?
Secondly, what is the plan to expand this cross-border taxi service to private hire cars? Because private hire cars' pricings are quite dynamic and as pointed out by the Senior Minister of State, the operating cost of driving a P2P vehicle in Johor Bahru is a small fraction of what is the cost in Singapore. So, how would MOT consider measures to prevent the undercutting of fares in this matter? And thirdly, when the Senior Minister of State says that LTA wants to increase the number of drop-off points in Malaysia and Singapore – currently, there is only one drop-off point in Johor Bahru and it is in Larkin; and in Singapore, there is one drop-off point – how many drop-off points is MOT thinking of having? Is it five? Is it 10 or is it 20?
Ms Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. There have been several discussions between Singapore's MOT as well as Malaysia's Ministry of Transport and Agensi Pengangkutan Awam Darat (APAD). Amongst the discussion points that we have include a higher quota of taxis for each country, the introduction of larger multi-purpose vehicle taxi models and the use of ride-hailing apps to make bookings.
The Member had a second question with regard to private hire vehicles. This, I would approach cautiously because we have been having discussions with our local NPHVA. They are conscious that if we should liberalise the Cross Border Taxi Scheme too widely and not have a separate scheme for private hire vehicles, there could be a situation where private hire vehicles could end up providing illegal P2P services in Singapore.
I think what is important to note is that any vehicle, especially those which are foreign that operate in Singapore, they need to have the necessary decals, the necessary livery, so that is very clear that they are part of a licence scheme that has been negotiated between both countries, and not individuals owning private hire vehicles conducting illegal P2P trips.
Sorry, the Member had a third question. Yes, could I ask him to repeat that?
Mr Ang Wei Neng: Yes, thank you to the Senior Minister of State. My third question is that we know the cost of operating a taxi in Malaysia is a small fraction of the cost of operating a taxi in Singapore. So, when we increase the fleet size and also liberalise the cross-border taxi services, how could we ensure that the parties will not undercut the fare?
Ms Sun Xueling: Thank you. I had shared in my main reply that part of the discussions that we are having with the Malaysian authorities is to allow Singapore as well as Malaysian vehicles to drop off at any point in Singapore and in Johor Bahru, because there is demand, this is a need that has been expressed by commuters.
But that said, it is very important that we enforce effectively. And that is why I have emphasised the need for us to have the installation of the OBU, for instance, for the purposes of location tracking and also discussing with platform operators to use their technology platforms to track where the vehicles are going.
Mr Speaker: Ms Yeo, keep it short.
\tMs Yeo Wan Ling: Thank you, Speaker. I note that Senior Minister of State had in her reply talked about working with ride-hail platforms, and I also have reports of ride-hail platforms from across the border being set up, introducing cross-border taxi services. How will LTA or MOT be working with these overseas registered apps to ensure that there is parity and fairness when it comes to offering such rides in Singapore as well as in Malaysia?
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for her supplementary question. Such apps have to be recognised by both Singapore and Malaysia. So, where we are aware that there are apps that are being used to provide cross-border services, but have actually not been endorsed by our local authorities before-hand, we will investigate. We cannot allow the proliferation of apps that have not been discussed between both authorities before. This is to ensure that there will not be illegal P2P trips being conducted via such apps.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ang. Keep it short as well.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng: Thank you, Speaker. I have asked a question on how could we prevent the undercutting of fares, because the cost of operating a taxi in Malaysia is only a fraction of the cost of operating a taxi in Singapore.
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his question. As part of the review of the Cross Border Taxi Scheme, we will be consulting our associations to ensure that fares are reasonable to our passengers, while providing assurance to Singaporean drivers that cross-border trips are viable, given their operational cost.
I think what the Member is concerned about is rides that are illegal, and the fares of these illegal rides are undercutting the fares and the services that are being provided by legal provision of such services. So, for such illegal provision of services where fares are undercutting the fares that are pre-negotiated between both countries' authorities, we will enforce in a strict manner against such illegal providers of services.
Mr Speaker: Last supplementary question. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. Keep it short.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker. If I may build on the question by Ms Yeo earlier on, I have also received feedback from residents engaged in private hire vehicle services that these illegal ride-hailing services are offered not just via unauthorised apps, but also via chat groups.
My first question is I am wondering whether the Ministry has a sense of the pervasiveness of such illegal services being offered via chat groups as well as apps. And secondly, if the Ministry has a plan to crack down on such means of securing services, for example, using \"secret shopper\" or methodologies of this nature?
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his question. Under Singapore's laws, the Government can order the take down of content linked to illegal activities and non-compliance can lead to further enforcement actions like blocking access or app removal. So, this is with regards to illegal chat groups that promote the provision of illegal P2P services.
MOT and LTA are also looking to obtain further legal powers to ensure that online platforms comply with LTA's removal request for illegal P2P services should the platforms remain unresponsive. At the same time, the LTA has also been conducting operations to infiltrate into these chat groups and to take action against providers of such illegal services. Unfortunately, for operational reasons, I cannot share more details. But rest assured that LTA is aware of the situation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on MDWs Seeking Treatment for Mental Health Conditions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Minister for Manpower (a) from 2021 to 2025, whether there is data on the number of migrant domestic workers in Singapore who have (i) sought treatment for mental health conditions or (ii) encountered legal issues when seeking treatment for mental illnesses; and (b) if so, what is the data.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Manpower (Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, each year, between 2022 and 2024, less than 20 migrant domestic workers (MDWs) sought medical assistance at public healthcare institutions, polyclinics and general practitioners (GPs) for mental health reasons. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has not come across any cases of MDWs encountering legal issues when seeking such assistance.
MDWs' legal rights to access medical treatment, including for mental health conditions, are protected under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act which requires employers to cover their MDW's medical expenses, including for mental health treatments. Employers who deny their MDWs of necessary medical treatment could be fined up to $10,000 and/or imprisoned for up to 12 months. The employer may also be barred from employing migrant workers in the future.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Razak.
\tDr Hamid Razak (West Coast-Jurong West): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. The reason I am asking this supplementary question is that we have feedback on the ground that some MDWs have cited mental health issues to seek secondary employment as well as breaking down soon after seeking employment following a medical assessment prior to getting employment. I think the question has been raised in the House before, on whether the Ministry would consider, at some point in time, when the burden of mental health illness, which is a certain threshold, if mental health assessment be part of the pre-employment assessment for MDWs in future.
\tMr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong: I thank the Member for the question. Today, MDWs are required to declare whether they have mental health conditions, as part of their pre-employment medical examination. So, where there is a positive declaration or any suspicion that they have mental health conditions, the attending doctor, at that time, may recommend further assessments, but with additional costs.
This approach helps to keep medical tests and costs manageable for the employers in general, whilst ensuring that the individuals with healthcare conditions can be identified for further necessary follow-up. So, employers with concerns about their MDWs' mental health well-being, are also advised to seek medical advice, which may also be referred to a mental health facility or care professional.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Funding and Viewership Ratings for Public Service Broadcasting Programmes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Mr Foo Cexiang asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) in each of the past five years, how much Government funding has been provided for public service broadcasting (PSB); (b) which PSB programmes has received such Government funding; and (c) whether the Ministry has assessed a need to recalibrate the amount of Government funding provided in order to boost the popularity of locally created content.
5 Mr Foo Cexiang asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Ministry tracks data and statistics on viewership ratings of public service broadcasting (PSB) programmes; and (b) if so, how do the viewership ratings of PSB programmes in the past five years compare with those in the earlier preceding five years.
\tThe Minister for Digital Development and Information (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 4 and 5 together?
\tMr Speaker: Go ahead.
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Sir, our Public Service Media (PSM) play an important role to inform, educate and connect Singaporeans. They provide trusted and timely sources of information to form a common basis for social discourse. They also reflect our multicultural fabric and way of life.
To enable our PSM entities to effectively adapt and innovate in the fast-changing media landscape, the Government provides funding for their overall operations, rather than individual programmes.
Over the past five financial years, the Government has allocated about $380 million annually to support Mediacorp to reach domestic audiences across four languages. This is lower than the annual funding of approximately $750 million allocated to the national broadcasters of Finland and Denmark, which have similar population sizes to Singapore. Mediacorp reached more than 90% of the local population through its owned and operated platforms as well as social media platforms. More than 75% of its audiences were satisfied with its services.
We do not have comparable reach data in the earlier years as we have moved from tracking solely television (TV) reach to a broader reach metric across all Mediacorp's platforms and social media platforms. This is in keeping with the domestic audiences' changing consumption habits and Mediacorp's broader network strategy. For example, Mediacorp's TV reach dropped by about 10% over the last decade or so, but unique video viewers on meWATCH have increased by about 80% in the same period. Meanwhile, public satisfaction with Mediacorp has held steady, at more than 75% across this time period.
The Government is committed to continue supporting our PSM to deliver high-quality and trusted news and entertainment content to Singaporeans. We will continue to ensure that Government funding can adequately and effectively support our PSM in achieving their national mission.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Foo.
\tMr Foo Cexiang (Tanjong Pagar): Speaker, Sir, I grew up watching Channel 8 and Channel 5, as did many of my classmates. These were hot discussion topics during lunch, but most importantly, these were core common memories grounded in the local culture and community. I think it is absolutely critical that we continue to have this for future generations.
I understand the challenges of growing demands and competition, such as Netflix, but in particular, there were three developments recently that left me very encouraged.
Mediacorp's Emerald Hill, the Little Nyonya story, I note, was Singapore's most watched series on Netflix, even overtaking hot K-dramas starring starring IU when it first debuted. It had more than 1.67 million views on meWATCH and Channel 8, and it is going to premiere on Chinese streaming platform Tencent at the end of this year. We have had many actors, local actors, nominated for Best Actor/Actresses at the Golden Horse Awards, and I am also looking forward to the return of Xie Shaoguang to the silver screen later.
So, contrary to what naysayers say, I think the future is bright and we have to give this a further boost. Therefore, my question for the Minister is: is the Government prepared to support Mediacorp, our local broadcaster, in more collaborations with international platforms, such as Netflix and Tencent, so that our local produced dramas and shows will have a reach both local and overseas?
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, I am very heartened by the Member's enthusiastic support for creators of local drama content, local entertainment content. I realise that he and I share something in common now. Growing up on local TV productions, we probably can hum several tunes together, given the right opportunity.
He is right that there is a need to support such local production initiatives and he mentioned a few examples that are now available on streaming services, such as Netflix, and soon to come, Tencent. These are very important to widening the reach of not just Mediacorp's productions, but also the productions of independent media content creators in Singapore. They both contribute to the vibrancy of our local ecosystem.
In that regard, I am happy to share with him that it is not just the negotiations that are commercial in nature that take place between the production houses, including Mediacorp, and streaming services. These will, obviously, have to be carried forward with a view towards making sure that there is actually demand for the productions.
Another very important way in which we are supporting this effort is through the International Co-Production Fund that the Infocomm Media Development Authority launched about two years ago. What this programme does is to provide funding support to the producers of local drama series to collaborate with their international counterparts, and their international counterparts will include scriptwriters, directors, producers. The reason we want to do so is to enable a reach into the wider pool of talents that are available but, more importantly, to create content that has potentially an audience beyond Singapore, even though the themes are very much anchored on Singapore.
In this way, we also help the local production houses, including Mediacorp, reach an international audience and tell Singapore stories better. And I am pleased to share with him that since this fund was launched, in fact, there have been productions that have been provided with the support, and we will assess to what extent this kind of support can be sustained as well as expanded in the future.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore's Assessment of 20-Point Peace Plan for Gaza","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) how will Singapore support the 20-point peace plan for Gaza proposed by the United States; and (b) whether Singapore will consider playing a role in the peace plan if it is accepted by both Israel and Hamas.
7 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) how does the Government assess the viability of the Gaza peace plan in advancing a two-state solution; and (b) what role can Singapore play to contribute constructively, including the possible recognition of a Palestinian state under suitable conditions.
\tThe Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Mr Speaker, with your permission, can I address Question Nos 6 and 7 together?
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tDr Vivian Balakrishnan: I believe Mr Gerald Giam1 has also filed a question, similar topic, for a subsequent Sitting. I will try to address the issue in this reply and also be happy to take supplementary questions. And if that is adequate, the Member can withdraw his Parliamentary Question that was filed for a later session.
Singapore welcomed the agreement that was reached on 9 October 2025 by Israel and Hamas on the first phase of the Trump peace plan. I need to commend the incredible achievement of President Trump, his negotiating team, which includes Mr Steve Witkoff, Marco Rubio, Jared Kushner and also, the invaluable part played by Egypt, Qatar and Turkey.
This is a critical plan and it is not just the details of the plan or how many points there are. But the fact is that America remains the indispensable superpower with real leverage and is willing to apply that leverage on the warring parties to arrive at where we are today. So, the first phase is now being implemented and in particular, that means a ceasefire and the release of the hostages, at least, those who are alive. And this is crucial, this is important, this is the first step of what will, in fact, be a long and arduous journey to peace. And we should have no illusions. Many things can still go wrong.
The next few essential steps are a surge in humanitarian assistance – and I will explain later what Singapore will do on that front – and then, the establishment of some kind of Transitional Authority. I would also expect and hope that there will be some United Nations (UN) Security Council resolution to provide an international legal framework for these arrangements. And then, the Palestinian Authority, which as part of that plan, has committed to reform. And I will also explain what we will do to assist the Palestinian Authority on its journey and, on its journey, which I would like to add, ultimately, to a two-state solution, which Singapore supports.
So, now let me turn to what we are doing and are hoping to do more of on the humanitarian front.
In the past two years, we have been working very closely with the Egyptian Red Crescent, with the Jordanian Hashemite Charity Organisation. We are also working with the World Food Programme; and we are also working with a few Egyptian hospitals, in fact, the medical team from the National University Hospital was just there a few weeks ago. We have also deployed as and when there has been hospital ships in the area to provide medical treatment to people who need help.
I think the immediate acceleration of humanitarian assistance now, is the fact that I hope the over land routes will open. That is crucial if humanitarian assistance is going to be delivered at the scale necessary. So, we will certainly look forward to doing more with our partners in the region and I would add, we also expect the Israelis to do their part to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance over land through the crossings into Gaza.
It is premature to discuss what we will do with the Transitional Authority, because that is still inchoate at this point in time. But what I would say, is that, in the short term, in the immediate term, we certainly want to do more with the Palestinian Authority.
We have already been working with them for years – capacity-building programmes, technical assistance, more recently, scholarships. And all this with a view to enhancing the capacity, to exercise effective administrative oversight and to exercise the levers of government in their eventual statehood. And I would expect to increase the tempo of our interaction with the Palestinian Authority so that they can fulfil this ambition. Again, we will need time and we will stand ready to respond to the Palestinian Authority's assessment of its own needs and particularly, I hope its ability to exercise governance in Gaza as well, an area in which it has not been able to exercise governance for two decades.
So, I just want to give this House the assurance that we are watching developments very closely and we will do our best within the limits and constraints of distance and the fact that we are very small, but we happen to have a multiracial, multi-religious united society who is open-hearted, generous and willing to do, in a sense, more than our fair share to help people in need in this very dire set of circumstances.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ang.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast-Jurong West): Thank you, Sir. And thank you to the Minister for the comprehensive reply. When I submitted this Parliamentary Question, the 20-point peace plan was yet to be accepted by Hamas and Israel. We are glad that the plan has now been accepted and the hostages have been released.
I would like to ask the Minister if Singapore would consider helping to rebuild Gaza by setting up a clinic to offer treatments to the residents of Gaza and send a medical team to Gaza right now, in the interim. And two, will the Minister also consider setting up a school, for example, in Gaza, to educate the young that have very little opportunity to access quality education? And thirdly, will Singapore consider sending a small peacekeeping team to provide logistic support to the bigger efforts led by the US? Of course, I am suggesting this when the situation is more stable.
\tDr Vivian Balakrishnan: Mr Speaker, I have explained that we have, in fact, already been contributing on the medical front in the last two years. We look forward to doing more with our partners. But it depends very much on access, on security and on the needs.
I would make this point from a medical perspective. At this stage, you are not dealing with the immediate acute trauma. In fact, you are dealing with difficult sequelae like amputations, the need for prosthesis, the need for rehabilitation, the need to deal with psychological and emotional trauma. So, it is a different set of of specialties that are necessary. And my point again is depending on the needs and depending on our resources, we will do our part. That is on the medical side.
The exact locations of deployment are again dictated by exigencies on the ground. Where are the facilities in which our medical staff can make a contribution? And to that end, I am sure this House will agree, we also want to pay attention to the safety of our staff on the ground.
On schools, well, I think we should be cognisant that there are very few Arab fluent speakers in Singapore. But to the extent that we can work with \"train the trainer\" programmes, and in the long run, there is going to be a need for education, and vocational education and training, which will help enhance their ability to acquire the skills which are necessary for the long-term economy.
So, these are things again and I see where the Member is coming from, but let us be realistic and approach this in a step wise fashion.
It is premature to talk about peacekeeping troops. As I said, I would wait first for a UN Security Council resolution. I hope there will be one and we will assess very carefully what role we can contribute. It would be premature for me to make any commitments at this stage.
Mr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.
\tMr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. And I thank the Minister. I had a supplementary question on humanitarian aid assistance and I am heartened to hear that Singapore will continue to work with the international bodies, and at the same time maintain the safety of our humanitarian workers there.
My question is on the President Trump brokered peace deal. While it covers the phased withdrawal and also ceasefire, it leaves the questions of Palestinian statehood and the governance in Gaza unresolved. Does the Government view this as a credible step towards a genuine two-state solution? And then, as a follow-up question to that, I agree with the Minister that it may be too early or premature to tell whether this peace plan would be enduring and effective. But if it does lead to peace and stability for both the Israelis and the Palestinian people, we have to give credit where credit is due. Would Singapore nominate or support President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize?
\tDr Vivian Balakrishnan: The 20-point plan, as the Member has said, is a great achievement. It is a first and essential step – but not sufficient to achieving peace, security, development, hope and even ultimately a two-state solution.
Let me come back to the basics of where Singapore stands. Singapore believes the Palestinians have a right to self determination. Singapore believes there should be a negotiated two-state solution. I think I just delivered a Ministerial Statement and we spent two or more than two hours on this subject a month ago. So, our position on that remains unchanged.
Does this agreement help? I think this agreement sets the stage where it is possible to imagine a negotiated two-state solution can emerge. But I also want to remind everyone this has been one of the most intractable conflicts, not just of the last century, but going back a very long time. And whilst we are all cheered by the current positive news, I think we should be very realistic and psychologically be prepared that this will be a long and arduous journey.
For Singapore, we should maintain our consistent principled approach. We should continue to have effective bridges and access to all the stakeholders. We should, wherever possible, within the limits of our capability, be constructive, reliable partners for peace for development and long-term reconciliation between two peoples who have been through unimaginable horrors in the last two years.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Sir, I thank the Minister for his answer. Sir, will Singapore seek a seat for an Eminent Person from Singapore on the Board of Peace, which will oversee the administration of Gaza? This board includes former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
The Minister has said that things are still inchoate, but would he agree that if we wait until it is fully formed, we would have missed the opportunity to get a seat on the board.
Sir, I believe our best contribution could be civil administrators. This is where we have a clear comparative advantage. It is a unique opportunity to contribute expertise and experience in nation building, and we could help build peace in the Middle East, and I dare say, even the wider world, given the global nature of this conflict.
Has the Ministry considered going beyond the regular Singapore Cooperation Programme, which typically invites selects Palestinian civil servants to attend training in Singapore, and instead send our senior civil servants or retired civil civil servants there to set up the administrative frameworks and structures and train the civil servants over there?
\tDr Vivian Balakrishnan: Mr Speaker, we are not campaigning to be on the Board of Peace. But let me take a step back and remind everybody. We are Singaporeans. Our approach is always to do more, say less, be quietly helpful and constructive work from the ground up. So, that is why we are not asking to sit on any boards, but we will step up our long-standing cooperation with the Palestinian Authority. And I would also remind you that it is not just under the Singapore Cooperation Programme by which we engage the Palestinian Authority.
We have been having regular meetings at senior levels. Palestinian Prime Minister has been here. Our Prime Minister has been there. I have been there several times. We will customise specific programmes that are relevant for them, but they will take the lead on which programmes they're interested in and how Singapore can best address their needs.
So, I hope Members of the House will agree with me that this understated, more discrete, behind-the-scenes, helpful, respectful approach is more appropriate for us in Singapore.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Minister, for your response. I just want to talk a bit about humanitarian aid. The Minister mentioned that multiple countries and non-governmental organisations are already providing aid and providing relief. So, how does Singapore ensure our aid compliments rather than duplicates international efforts? And have we identified specific gaps in the international response where Singapore's niche support can add the most value?
And lastly, can the Minister explain why sustaining our humanitarian and diplomatic engagement in Gaza matters to Singaporeans, not as an act of compassion, but as a reflection of our identity as a small nation committed to peace and multiracial harmony?
\tDr Vivian Balakrishnan: There are many in international aid agencies involved and I would highlight first the UN itself, the UN's Work and Relief Committee, which has been doing work there for decades, in fact. I have mentioned the World Food Programme. I would also take reference from the hopefully soon-to-be established Transitional Authority.
It is for people on the ground to decide what is needed and to coordinate, and then we fit in. It is not for us to impose our idea of how aid should be delivered. So, again, I hope Members understand my position of not trying to be pushy, and not trying to aim for positions on boards, and not trying to excessively draw attention, but just to quietly and effectively work in the background.
The other supplementary question is why do we do this? And we do this because first it is an expression of Singaporeans' innate generosity and compassion. Second, I believe in fact, that Singapore does have some significant resonance in the Middle East. I have shared with this House before that when a Singapore delegation goes there, the diversity of the delegation – multi-religious, multiracial – has special resonance there. Because there you have an example of conflicts over land, but turbo-charged by appeals to religious and other tribal instincts.
\tThe example that a Singapore, united, cohesive, in the midst of our great diversity, and able to stand on our own two feet and then, to generously help enhance other people's capacity to also stand on their own two feet, is something which I believe, does also reflect well on our society.
I think it reflects the basic decency, goodwill and generosity that exists in the hearts of all Singaporeans. So, that is why we do it.
But having said that, I would also add: there are many other trouble spots in the world. And right now, if you look at what is happening in Sudan, or even if you look at the sequela of what has happened in Syria, in Yemen, there are many other trouble spots, on which in due time, I think people will also hope that Singaporeans respond to accordingly.
\tMr Speaker: Last supplementary question. Mr Fadli Fawzi.
Mr Fadli Fawzi (Aljunied): Minister, 12 nations, including France and Japan, have set up an emergency coalition for the financial sustainability of the Palestinian Authority to support the effort to stabilise the Palestinian Authority's finances and ensure the continued viability of the two-state solution. In light of the Gaza Peace Plan, will Singapore now consider joining them in making financial contributions to the Palestinian Authority, and if not, why not?
\t
\tDr Vivian Balakrishnan: I think it is premature, but if the need arises and if there is a specific programme, I will certainly be happy to share it with the House.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : 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":["6","7"],"questionNo":"6-7"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of CPF Members Aged 65-67 Still in Employment and Review of Dependants' Protection Scheme to Increase Age Limit of 65","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the number of CPF members aged 65 to 67 years old who are still in employment; and (b) whether the Government is considering increasing the age limit for the Dependants' Protection Scheme from the current 65 years old.
9 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Manpower for each year in the past three years, what is the number of CPF members below the age of 65 whose Dependants' Protection Scheme coverage has lapsed due to non-payment of premium.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 8 and 9 together, please, as they are both about the Dependants' Protection Scheme (DPS)?
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tDr Tan See Leng: As of 2024, 94,500, or 33% of Central Provident Fund (CPF) members aged 65 to 67, are in employment. We regularly review the DPS to ensure that it remains relevant to members.
In 2021, we raised the maximum age coverage of the DPS from 60 to 65. In taking this decision, we sought to strike a balance between providing insurance protection for members’ dependants for a longer period, while at the same time, ensuring the adequacy of members' retirement savings. Raising the maximum coverage age beyond 65 would result in higher premiums due to higher mortality rates after age 65 and consequentially, would reduce members' savings for retirement.
The DPS lapse rates have held quite steady and low, at less than 0.2% in the past three years. All members will receive notifications via both SMS and mail if their CPF balances are insufficient and they can opt to pay their DPS premiums in cash. Members who have lapsed on their premium payments are given at least 60 days of payment grace period and a final notice before the DPS coverage is terminated. Those who wish to re-join the scheme can subsequently still apply to Great Eastern Life, which is the current administrator of DPS to do so.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Mariam Jaafar.
\tMs Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): Thank you, Minister, for your responses. I have three supplementary questions to my first Parliamentary Question and one supplementary question to my second Parliamentary Question.
On coverage for seniors above 65, my supplementary questions would be – I understand that there are implications in terms of premium cost, but more seniors are remaining in the workforce beyond 65. In fact, our own Re-employment Age has moved to 67. And they are supporting dependants, both children as well as seniors, with our increased life expectancy. So, would the Minister consider the current age limit to remain appropriate and fit-for-purpose, given the current realities?
Two, could the Minister share what actuarial studies have been done on the feasibility of extending DPS coverage to align with the current Re-employment Age and what the implications might there be for premiums? How much of an increase are we talking about?
And thirdly, if a broad-based approach is too costly, could the Minister consider more targeted approaches or optional DPS extension, perhaps at a higher premium? Because I think of the cost of not having coverage, if something bad happens and DPS is a great scheme. It would be great for those who are still in employment to benefit from it.
On the Parliamentary Question on non-payment, I appreciate the data that there is only 0.2%, which is quite comforting. Does the Minister have insights on the reason for non-payment? Is it mostly due to financial difficulties or is it lack of awareness? The Minister mentioned that members could apply, so, I am glad to know that there are grace periods. Could the Minister also consider additional safeguards, in terms of premium assistance and more flexible reinstatement arrangements to support people who really need it?
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. I think there are a total of six supplementary questions; three for each one of the Parliamentary Questions. I will try to address all of them.
For above 65 coverage, alongside what actuarial studies have been done to align with the Re-employment Age and the suggestion of targeted approach, we are indeed considering this. As I have said, we constantly review these. At the next bound, some of the measures that we are looking at to see how we can align the coverage with the potential raising of that retirement age to 65 before 2030 and the Re-employment Age to 70 before 2030 – certainly, these are things that we will look at across, as a package.
I think the actuarial studies done thus far have shown that the premiums do go up quite disproportionately if we try to extend the cover beyond 65. But with the very fact that we are also rapidly ageing and the age of the workforce is also getting there, if we have a sizeable pool, looking at how that pooling of that premium can be spread across, I think extending coverage is certainly something that we are open to considering. We have not stopped reviewing this framework because we want to try to provide for the coverage for as long as possible. But we always have to balance between sustainability, affordability and also, ensuring that there is a sufficient sum left behind for the members to tap on when they are finally eligible for that payout, at age of 65 or 70, depending on how they choose.
With regard to the Member's point on non-payment, for those members whose DPS coverage has lapsed, about 75% of them are aged above 55 years old. Many of them are no longer working, or they were self-employed persons before. Thus, they do not have Ordinary Account contributions which could be used to pay for those premiums. And for those whose DPS coverage lapsed as of 31 December 2022, around 40% of them have reinstated or they have started new cover as of 31 December 2024. So, this has to be taken against the broader numbers. Today, there are over two million Singaporeans and Permanent Residents who are covered under DPS. And amongst the active CPF members between the ages of 21 and 65, 86% are covered under DPS. So, that number, that 75%, is of that 16% that we are really talking about. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Minister for Manpower\", Official Report, 15 October 2025, Vol 96, Issue 8, Correction By Written Statement section.]
There are obviously different types of assistance schemes that are available. Many of these members can also reach out to some of the social agencies to see what kind of help can be rolled out to them. What we are trying to do is to ensure that we can cover as broad-based a scheme as possible for all members if possible, but it would not be possible to cover every single one of them.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support Measures for Middle-income Households and Retirees Exempt from Other Help Schemes for Impending Rise in Electricity and Gas Tariffs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry with electricity and gas tariffs set to rise for October to December period, what measures are being considered to support middle-income households and retirees who do not qualify for existing schemes such as the GST Voucher or Assurance Package, but who nonetheless experience financial strain from rising utility cost.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, Sir, for the period from October to December 2025, these coming three months, electricity and town gas tariffs have increased slightly by 0.3% from the preceding quarter. This is due to higher imported fuel costs.
The majority of Singaporean households living in Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats, including middle-income households and retirees, receive the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Voucher, U-Save to offset their utilities bills. In addition, there are other schemes available to help with the cost of living, such as, the Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers and the Assurance Package. Residents who do not qualify for such schemes, who might nonetheless experience financial difficulties, may seek assistance from their local Social Service Office if they require assistance to meet basic needs.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.
\tMs Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do know that U-Save and GST vouchers are for those middle-income and those in public housing. My question was really for more the retirees who live in private properties, who do not have access or eligibility to these U-Save vouchers. While the increase is small in the light of high cost of living, it does impact our retirees. So, I would ask if there would be consideration of support schemes that could help our retirees who live in modest private property.
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank Ms Tan for her supplementary question. For this year, for Budget 2025, all Singaporeans will also benefit from the SG60 package, which includes $600 to $800 in vouchers. Of course, there is also the personal income tax rebate. But for retirees, really, that may not apply that much to them.
The SG60 vouchers would also be given out to middle-income households and retirees. So, for retirees, those who are aged 60 and above, they are eligible for $800 in vouchers, and for those who are between 21 and 59, in the event that they are also retired after 55, they would be eligible for $600 in SG60 vouchers.
All Singaporean households are eligible for $800 in CDC vouchers, so these vouchers for this year itself will benefit around three million Singaporean adults, of which, around 1.1 million, about a third, are aged 60 and above. The CDC vouchers will benefit around 1.3 million Singaporean households. It will go some way in alleviating some of these concerns.
Looking forward, we are watching and monitoring the pricing of our imported natural gas very closely. With regard to the U-Save vouchers, while we put it out to help HDB households, we would also strongly ask for support from all of our Singaporeans to conserve energy because the more we provide in terms of grants or support, and if energy consumption continues to increase, for us over the long haul, it would be very difficult to sustain. I hope that gives the Member the reassurance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Accessibility Features in Autonomous Shuttle Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Acting Minister for Transport what accessibility and inclusion features will be incorporated into autonomous shuttle services to support wheelchair users, users who are not proficient in English, families with strollers, blind users and deaf persons.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Acting Minister for Transport): In the initial pilot phase of the deployment, a safety operator, who will be on board the autonomous vehicle (AV) shuttle, can assist passengers. Ambassadors will also be on the ground to assist with boarding, alighting and journey planning. Only larger AVs like the eight-seater Robobus autonomous shuttle will be able to accommodate folded wheelchairs and strollers at the moment, but in time there will be more of such vehicles.
Safety is our key priority. We will work with the AV operators to consider the accessibility and inclusivity of AV rides for commuters with different mobility needs.
Mr Speaker: Ms Phua.
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): I thank the Senior Minister of State. My supplementary question is this: whether the Ministry and other Government agencies as well would seriously adopt the principle of universal design in the designing of services and their products and other offerings as well? The old model of design is really to accommodate, which is to design, for example, a standard vehicle, for average, then, after the pilot, add on as an afterthought, features for special groups, which can be costly and also can be clumsy.
The universal design mindset really suggests that from day one, designers, policy-makers and operators actually consider a larger audience, the overall users and then add in features – accessibility and inclusivity features – that will benefit, in this case, not just the disabled and the elderly, but also users with baby prams, heavy luggage or even trolleys. So, my supplementary question is therefore, would agencies, including Ministry of Transport, SMRT already does quite a bit of that, adopt this mindset and philosophy of universal design?
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for her supplementary question, as well as her feedback. Indeed, we would like to do more for our commuters with different needs.
I would just like to add that for the AV shuttles, because at the current moment we are buying vehicles from the market and they are of a smaller size. Most of them now are five-seaters and, as a result of that, these very small number of vehicles – there are about 10 of them right now in this pilot phase – do not fully include all the design parameters that we would like to have to be able to serve as diverse a spectrum of needs of commuters as possible.
So, what we would like to do moving forward is that we will share this feedback that the Member has with the manufacturers of these AV shuttles and look at how to incorporate this right from the onset, rather than have to add on subsequently, which would add on cost, just as the Member has shared.
Separately, where we are able to do so, in terms of the infrastructure on the ground, whether it is at the pick-up and drop-off points or the bus stops, when we scale up the AV shuttles to a larger scale, with more vehicles and more AV shuttles on the roads, we will definitely adopt a universal design philosophy so that we do not have to add on subsequently, which would incur costs in terms of infrastructure.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Lowering Speed Limit for Bicycles on Shared Paths to Enhance Safety","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Ms Gho Sze Kee asked the Acting Minister for Transport whether the Ministry would consider lowering the speed limit for bicycles on shared paths from the current 25 km/h for the safety of other path users.
\tThe Minister of State for Transport (Mr Baey Yam Keng) (for the Acting Minister for Transport): The speed limit of 25 kilometres per hour for bicycles as well as other active mobility devices on shared paths is based on normal cycling speed and takes into account the rules of shared used and the safety of all users. Cyclists should slow down and give way to pedestrians, especially when approaching crowded places.
The Land Transport Authority (LTA) will continue to ensure path safety and conduct education campaigns and community engagement programmes regularly to promote gracious path sharing and safe behaviour.
Mr Speaker: Ms Gho.
\tMs Gho Sze Kee (Mountbatten): Speaker, I have two supplementary questions for the Minister of State. To put things into perspective, 25 kilometres per hour would be about seven metres per second, and about 14 to 15 seconds for every 100 metres. That is roughly the speed of a very fit and casual jogger, somewhat like Mr Speaker, when you are running at full throttle. So, imagine that, Mr Speaker, the momentum of a bicycle. And this is what pedestrians, especially the elderly staying in Mountbatten and perhaps in other areas of Singapore, are facing right now.
So, in light of this, I will ask this question. Would the Minister of State not consider bicycles at that speed on a path shared by the elderly, young children and adults walking their pets, to be reckless as well? Should we not consider lowering the speed as a deterrent measure, as opposed to enforcement and education, especially when a lower speed limit will improve reaction time and safety?
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Baey. He is a faster runner. [Laughter.]
\tMr Baey Yam Keng: Thank you, Speaker, but even then, I do not run at 25 kilometres an hour.
I thank Ms Gho for her concern for the more vulnerable users on our paths. But I would like to explain that this speed limit of 25 kilometres an hour was derived by the Active Mobility Advisory Panel after extensive consultations with different users of our paths. So, the 25 kilometres an hour is for shared paths, which tend to be wider and allows for pedestrians or slow-moving users to keep to one side, which means to the left of the path, to allow for faster-moving device users to overtake them. So, if the users adhere to this code of conduct, we do allow the different users travelling at different speeds to co-exist harmoniously and safely.
In areas where the paths are narrower – those are what we call footpaths – the speed limit has been lowered to 10 kilometres an hour. And on these paths, devices which are motorised cannot be used. That means, only manual bicycles could be used, as well as for users of personal mobility aids. That means, these are for people with mobility issues.
We will continue to observe, monitor the situation; and where necessary, we could look at revising the rules on the speeds.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): I do agree with the views expressed by the hon Ms Gho. I am respectfully of the view that I think 25 kilometres per hour, aside from those on road bikes, would be more appropriate for bicycle speed on the road rather than on a shared path. I think most bicycles, other than road bikes, do not travel as much as that speed on shared paths or even on the roads.
And I have a separate supplementary question. Mr Speaker, since 2017, when the Active Mobility Act was passed, I have said repeatedly in this House that to promote a safe and considerate riding culture, we need to have regular enforcement and adequate public education for all users, including cyclists.
Recently, the Minister of State mentioned that riders could, where necessary, overtake pedestrians on a shared lane by riding into the pedestrian-only lanes – if I hear him correctly from the last Sitting. I am concerned that this may be dangerous, especially riding at a higher speed of say, 20 to 25 kilometres per hour. So, may I ask Minister of State, how extensive are the current public education efforts being carried on the ground, that is, on the shared paths, especially the popular shared paths, to regulate use of all users of shared paths, including advising them to lower their speed, and can these ground outreach efforts be further enhanced?
Mr Baey Yam Keng: LTA has rolled out public education campaigns since 2016. We reach out to community groups, schools, and this is important because we want users to develop good habits from young. So, yes, we will continue to reach out to as many groups as possible and targeting areas where there has been a lot of feedback or more observed higher speeds of cycling in those areas. We could work with grassroots, with resident groups, communities to do the outreach.
I would also like to emphasise that the speed limit is the maximum speed allowed. It is not the speed at which device users and cyclists should expect to sustain for any distances. So, when the path is crowded, there are obstacles in front, a slower-moving device or user in front, they should slow down and give way to them. That is the expectation. And if there are cases where riders or cyclists had been reckless, they will be taken to task.
I will just make a clarification to Mr Dennis Tan's supplementary question. When I said earlier, at a previous Sitting about allowing device users to overtake, these are for cases where there is a pedestrian-only path beside a cycling path. There is no pedestrian-only path beside a shared path. Just wanted to explain the difference in the way we design our infrastructure.
Mr Speaker: Last supplementary question, Mr Cai Yinzhou.
\tMr Cai Yinzhou (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Thank you, Speaker. I would like to inquire on how, with footpaths being narrow, cyclists may be elderly themselves and navigating these obstacles, like running children or dog walkers, may be challenging for them as well. So, cyclist speed may not be the only factor of danger, but also the ability of these cyclists to navigate these obstacles.
My supplementary question is whether the Ministry will consider cycling pathways to be designed to co-exist on the road, especially in areas with high density of pedestrians or vulnerable individuals, like schools or silver zones.
Mr Baey Yam Keng: Due to the space constraints, especially on road infrastructure, we do not build cycling paths on roads. Having said that, cyclists and device users can cycle on and can ride on the roads. This is allowed. And so, our approach has been building cycling infrastructure off roads. As I said earlier, where it is possible, we will separate the cycling paths and pedestrian-only paths. When the space is more limited, then we will have shared paths. And when it is even more limited, it will be just footpaths, and on footpaths, there are restrictions on what kind of devices could be used on those.
So, in order to allow for different users of our spaces to co-exist safely and harmoniously, we really need to build a culture of sharing, of gracious use of these spaces, and for everybody to understand the rules and abide by the rules. At the same time, we will carry out enforcement and take errant users to task for unsafe behaviours.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review and Recalibration of Foreign Manpower Mix to Enable Better Opportunities for Local Workforce","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Ms Gho Sze Kee asked the Minister for Manpower in view of the growing uncertainty in the jobs market and the challenges faced by recent tertiary graduates, whether there are plans to review and recalibrate the foreign manpower mix to provide Singapore’s local workforce with better opportunities, particularly at entry and mid-level PMET positions.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Speaker, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) constantly reviews our foreign workforce policies to ensure that our foreign workforce is complementary, and that Singaporeans will continue to have access to good job opportunities.
The updates are done annually and with key changes announced at MOM’s Committee of Supply. For instance, we regularly update our Employment Pass (EP) and S Pass qualifying salaries to keep pace with local wage growths, and it avoids undercutting local salaries. New EP applicants aged 23 years old must earn at least S$5,600 to qualify, and this is significantly above the median wage of our fresh graduates. We also refresh the Complementarity Assessment Framework for EP applications annually, keeping in line with market conditions. For example, we will add or remove occupations on the Shortage Occupation List based on industry shortages and industries’ efforts to develop the local pipeline.
\tWe strike a very careful balance when reviewing these policies. We need to provide businesses sufficient access to talent so that we can continue to maintain Singapore’s global competitiveness. In particular, foreign professionals help to attract foreign investments and multinational corporations that create a large number of good jobs for Singaporeans. While foreign-owned companies account for 20% of all companies in Singapore, they employ one-third of the resident workforce, and these include our fresh graduates as well. Foreign firms also create business for local firms, who in turn create jobs for Singaporeans.
MOM will continue to review our policies holistically. We will continue to invest heavily in our local workforce to support Singaporeans across all economic climates.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Success Rate of First-time Applicants Eligible for Family Care Scheme (Proximity) in Securing HDB BTO and BTO and SBF Units","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for National Development in the recent HDB Build-To-Order (BTO) and Sale of Balance Flats (SBF) launch in July 2025, (a) what is the success rate for first-time applicants who are eligible for the Family Care Scheme (Proximity); and (b) what is the breakdown of successful applicants based on their number of prior unsuccessful attempts.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Chee Hong Tat): Mr Speaker, the Family Care Scheme (Proximity), or FCS (Proximity), was introduced in July 2025. Under FCS (Proximity), married and single children who choose to live with or near their parents, or the other way round, can enjoy priority access to flats launched in the Housing and Development Board's (HDB’s) Build-To-Order (BTO) and Sale of Balance Flat (SBF) exercises.
The flat selection process for the July 2025 BTO and SBF exercises will commence from November 2025. For the BTO exercise, about six in 10 first-timer families and two in 10 first-timer singles who applied under FCS (Proximity) received a queue number.
For the SBF exercise, about seven in 10 first-timer families who applied under FCS (Proximity) received a queue number.
Sir, among first-timer family FCS (Proximity) applicants who received a queue number in the July 2025 sales exercise, about eight in 10 were on their first attempt, and one in 10 were on their second attempt.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Tan.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): I thank the Minister for the reply. I just wanted to give some context in terms of my supplementary question. The reason why I asked this is I have seen several appeals with regard to the launch of the Simei Symphony that is part of that launch. Many families were coming to appeal because they do want to stay with their families.
I noted Minister's point about the numbers in terms of those who had a queue number because I had several residents who came to see me who had many more attempts, some with three or four attempts at BTO applications, and were not successful. To give the context, for inter-generational caregiving needs, many do want to stay within the area, not just in Simei, for my residents of course, but even in the East they have been applying. Given that these proximity schemes or other priority schemes are giving residents more ballot opportunities, would the Ministry of National Development consider refinement to the balloting process that would allow the Proximity Scheme to give real priority for those who have attempted several times within an area that is close to their family, or may be, perhaps, even in extending the proximity area, may be beyond the four kilometre?
\t
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I understand the concerns that Ms Jessica Tan has raised. Indeed, we do want to encourage more families to stay near their family members, whether parents or children, so that the family can provide mutual support to one another.
HDB offers a range of priority schemes to enhance the ballot chances of certain groups. Please allow me to just share a little bit with the House.
For example, all first-timers receive one additional ballot. First-timer parents and married couples, eligible families receive an additional ballot. In other words, three ballots in total if they apply for a 4-room or a smaller standard flat. The first-timer families who have been unsuccessful in two or more BTO applications for standard 4-room smaller flats will receive an additional ballot chance for each subsequent BTO application for a standard flat. So, we do want to help them if they continue to apply for a standard flat, 4-room or smaller, to keep increasing their chances if they are unsuccessful.
On top of this, we give priority also under various schemes to further enhance chances of various groups. Of our available BTO flat supply, we set aside 40% for the Family and Parenthood Priority Scheme (FPPS) and 30% for the FCS (Proximity) that I just shared in my main reply. And the purpose is to support young parents and those who wish to live near their parents. Those who qualify for both schemes would be balloted twice. If you qualify for both, first, you ballot under FPPS and if you are not successful, then you have another go under FCS (Proximity).
Those who are unsuccessful in both ballots are then balloted again as a first-time, public applicant.
So, we offer higher chances to certain groups of buyers but to be candid, balloting outcomes cannot be guaranteed because there is an element of luck. This is especially so in popular projects, like the one that Ms Tan mentioned, and also in the larger flats such as 5-room flats or SBF flats, which the supply is smaller but the demand is high.
To improve the chances of more people being able to get the flat, we are building more flats. We are trying to launch more. We just announced the October launch, more than 9,000 flats, in total, including Shorter Waiting Time flats. And we want to encourage applicants to also consider applying for projects where there are larger supplies because the application rate would then be better.
During the application process, the application rates by estate and flat type would also be provided online and updated multiple times a day.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expediting Completion of HDB Developments with Longer Waiting Time","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Ms Lee Hui Ying asked the Minister for National Development what support measures does HDB take to speed up the completion of those HDB developments that have a longer waiting time, particularly developments which are expected to take more than five years.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Chee Hong Tat): Mr Speaker, to help Singaporeans secure their homes more quickly, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) has introduced measures to reduce the waiting times for new Build-To-Order (BTO) projects. These include prioritising sites that are ready for immediate construction, adopting innovative procurement practices to shorten project duration, and working with authorities and relevant stakeholders to expedite approvals.
Through these efforts, close to 70% of flats launched in 2023 and 2024, as well as those that are launched thus far in 2025, had waiting times of four years or less. HDB has also committed to launch more Shorter Waiting Time flats, with waiting times of less than three years.
The construction time for each BTO project would vary based on the project’s attributes, such as the design complexity, the site conditions, the number of storeys. At each BTO sales launch, HDB would offer multiple housing projects at different locations, with different designs, flat types, prices and waiting times, to suit the varying needs of flat buyers. Because we do have a large group of different flat buyers with diverse needs. This information is made available at project launch so that buyers can make considered decisions when they are applying for their BTO flats.
Sir, HDB will continue to work closely with the project contractors and consultants to expedite construction works as much as possible, while maintaining the safety and well-being of our workers, as well as ensuring project quality of the flats.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Lee.
Ms Lee Hui Ying (Nee Soon): Thank you, Mr Speaker. And I thank the Minister for the reply. I just have three supplementary questions. I think most BTO projects do complete on schedule or even before schedule. It is also in the interests of contractors to complete ahead so that they are able to recover and reinvest their capital faster.
So, would the Ministry, perhaps, consider creating an incentive system for contractors, to reward them when they complete projects materially ahead of projections while maintaining quality standards? It could be tax rebates or positive recognitions of their work.
Second, I received feedback from residents that in contrast to the recently newly announced and launched BTO developments which have much shorter waiting times, which is very much welcomed by residents, there are also some BTO developments, also in Yishun, that have a longer waiting time of around five to 10 years. So, some future homeowners now have a delayed life plans – whether it is starting a new family or moving into a new home. So, they are actually having a delayed life plans on that part. So, does HDB actually have measures to support or give recourse to these home buyers?
And third, would the Minister consider allowing more plots of land, especially those that are projected to have longer development periods to start development ahead of the BTO schedule so that then they are able to then have a perceived shorter waiting time of flats for future time buyers? In other words, instead of Build-To-Order, we have Build-Before-Order, so BBO?
\t
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I do agree with the Member that where we can we want to try and shorten the waiting times for flat buyers. My guidance to my colleagues in the Ministry of National Development and HDB is to build more and build faster so that we can keep up a robust supply of new HDB flats.
Sir, it is in the interest of contractors to complete projects ahead of schedule if they can because this allows them to recover and reinvest their capital more quickly. It also helps with the re-allocation of resources across projects that the contractors are undertaking. So, HDB will indeed continue to work closely with the agencies and the contractors to expedite the approvals and to support timely project completion.
We bring forward development where feasible to deliver more Shorter Waiting Time flats to Singaporeans. We have increased the supply of such flats from 2,800 last year to 4,690 this year – which exceeded our commitment of 4,500 – and we will continue to build more of such Shorter Waiting Time flats.
However, there are sites with longer development timelines because they may include sites that require more complex preparatory works which then limit how early we can start and we will continue to look at how we can optimise the timelines while ensuring a steady quality supply of homes.
Sir, we also recognise that longer waiting times can affect home buyers including those who are looking to start a family, those who have children. So, to help them, to support them HDB offers Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS) which provides a temporary housing option for eligible families while they wait for their BTO flats.
HDB has been ramping the supply of PPHS flats from 800 in 2021 to about 4,000 by the end of this year. As a result, the application rate has come down significantly and since June 2023, all eligible applicants who are married with a child aged 18 and below, including expectant parents, have been invited to select a PPHS flat.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tiered Approach for MediSave Withdrawal Limits","subTitle":"Taking into account age and number of chronic conditions","sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider a tiered approach to MediSave withdrawal limits as an enhancement to the MediSave 500/700 scheme by taking into account factors such as age and the number of chronic conditions under the Chronic Disease Management Programme (CDMP).
\tThe Minister of State for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, my response will also address the question for written answer previously filed by Mr Lee Hong Chuang for the Parliament Sitting on 25 September 2025.
MediSave is intended to help Singaporeans afford a range of healthcare needs. Two dominant ones are: managing chronic long-term diseases and larger, one-off costs associated with hospitalisations, which tend to be incurred later in life. Hence, MediSave withdrawal limits are reviewed regularly to judiciously balance between meeting current healthcare needs whilst preserving their MediSave savings for future healthcare needs.
The MediSave500/700 limits for treatment under the Chronic Disease Management Programme (CDMP) are already tiered. The lower $500 annual limit caters to patients with a single non-complex chronic condition while the higher $700 annual limit is for those with complex chronic conditions, including those with two or more CDMP chronic conditions.
\tFor older patients aged 60 and above, they will also benefit from the Flexi-MediSave scheme, which allows them to withdraw up to an additional $300 annually for their outpatient medical expenses, including those under CDMP. This Flexi-MediSave annual limit will be increased from $300 to $400 from 1 October 2025.
The Ministry of Health will also be increasing the annual outpatient scan withdrawal limit from $300 to $600 with effect from 1 January 2026. This will also help defray medical expenses of Singaporeans including those with long-term medical needs and chronic diseases. We will continue to regularly review the MediSave scheme.
\tMr Speaker: I will allow a short supplementary question. Dr Hamid Razak.
\tDr Hamid Razak (West Coast-Jurong West): I thank the Minister of State for her reply. As we do screening for Healthier SG, we are bound to see increases in chronic diseases in younger adults as well. I just want to find out if the Ministry is tracking the burden of this disease by different age groups to better inform us of future changes to the Flexi-MediSave scheme.
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: Mr Speaker, yes, we are tracking the different prevalence and trends. The limits as well as the chronic diseases that come under the CDMP are regularly revised and reviewed so that we can ensure that they remain adequate for those who need them.
\tMr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Introduction of Government Bills. Minister for Digital Development and Information.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to provide persons affected by online harmful activity with timely redress through the office of the Commissioner of Online Safety and rights of action in court proceedings, to improve and promote online safety, to deter and prevent online harmful activity, to promote accountability and responsible and reasonable conduct in the online environment, to make amendments to certain other Acts for alignment with this Act, and to make related amendments to other Acts\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister for Digital Development and Information (Mrs Josephine Teo) 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":"Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister of State for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health, I move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Sir, this Bill contains 29 clauses and makes miscellaneous amendments to several Acts. The majority of the amendments fall within the following five groups.
First, amendments to update the service provisions under various legislation.
Second, amendments arising from the repeal of the Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Act 1980.
Third, amendment of provisions to provide for the payment of financial penalties into the Consolidated Fund.
Fourth, amendments to common terms used in various legislation for alignment and consistency.
Fifth, the deletion of superseded amendments.
The rest of the amendments make changes to individual Acts, which I will also take Members through.
Clauses 2, 5, 8, 17, 19, 20, 23, 25 and 27 of the Bill amend various legislation, namely, the Allied Health Professions Act 2011, the Dental Registration Act 1999, the Health Products Act 2007, the Medical Registration Act 1997, the Nurses and Midwives Act 1999, the Optometrists and Opticians Act 2007, the Pharmacists Registration Act 2007, the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act 1993 (or TCASA), and the Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Act 2000.
These amendments relate to the manner in which service of documents may be effected on a person and updates it in view of technology such as email, which is widely used today. This allows for a greater flexibility in effecting such service.
Clauses 3, 4, 10, 11, 16, 18, 22, 24 and 28 amend various legislation, namely, the CareShield Life and Long-Term Care Act 2019 (or CSHL), the Criminal Procedure Code 2010, the Human Biomedical Research Act 2015, the Human Organ Transplant Act 1987, the Medical and Elderly Care Endowment Schemes Act 2000, the National Registry of Diseases Act 2007, the Personal Data Protection Act 2012, the Termination of Pregnancy Act 1974, and the Voluntary Sterilisation Act 1974.
These are to update the definitions or remove obsolete references as a consequence of the repeal of the Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Act 1980 (or PHMCA) and the enactment of the Healthcare Services Act 2020 (or HCSA) which replaces it.
Clauses 8, 19 and 23 of the Bill amend section 65(3) of the Health Products Act 2007, sections 42 and 43A of the Nurses and Midwives Act 1999, and sections 63 and 69(4) of the Pharmacists Registration Act 2007 to channel penalties and composition sums collected under those Acts into the Consolidated Fund.
Clause 13 amends section 41D of the Interpretation Act 1965 to align with the amendments made by the Family Justice Reform Act 2023 and the expressions used in the Family Justice Rules 2024 and Family Justice (Probate and Other Matters) Rules 2024. The amendment provides for the retention of old expressions for proceedings commenced before 15 October 2024 in the Family Justice Courts. Clause 13 also replaces references to commencement dates in sections 41A, 41D and 41E of the Interpretation Act 1965 with actual dates for clarity.
Clause 14 updates section 4(1) of the Legitimacy Act 1934 to replace the reference to \"originating summons\" with \"an originating application\" so that the procedure for making an application under section 4(1) is consistent with the procedure adopted in probate proceedings.
Clause 29 repeals superseded amendments in 11 Acts. These provisions have since been superseded by subsequent amendments, revisions or repeals, and for good order, these provisions will be deleted.
I now come to clause 6, which amends section 6 of the Development Fund Act to require that advances from the Contingencies Fund for the Development Fund must be authorised by a warrant issued under the authority of the Minister for Finance. This aligns with similar requirements for advances from the Contingencies Fund for the Consolidated Fund and formalises what MOF is already doing in practice today.
Moving on, clause 7 amends section 26 of the Employment Act 1968 (or EA) to align the EA with existing provisions under the MediShield Life Scheme Act 2015 (or MSHL) and the CSHL, which permits the deductions by employers of defaulters under the respective sections of the MSHL and CSHL to facilitate premium recovery.
Next, clause 9 makes two amendments to the Housing and Development Act 1959. It empowers HDB to make rules allowing the Minister for National Development to designate a Second Minister for his or her Ministry to hear and determine appeals and it deletes section 50(11) which is now obsolete as the policy regarding purchase of flats by owners of commercial property has been operationalised through the Housing and Development (Exemptions from Section 50(1) of Act) Notification 2023.
Clause 12(1) deletes an uncommenced provision in the Immigration (Amendment) Act 2023 relating to visa requirements. Clause 12(2) makes a technical amendment to section 9B of the Immigration Act 1959 to replace \"territory\" with \"country\" for consistency with the terminology used in the rest of the Immigration Act 1959.
Moving on, clause 15 amends the Maintenance of Parents Act 1995 to clarify two amendments that were made through the Maintenance of Parents (Amendment) Act 2023. It removes the age limitation in the definition of \"child\" in section 2 and inserts a new section 3AA to clarify that no claims or applications for maintenance can be made against a child below 21 years of age at the point of the claim or application and it inserts new subsections 2A and 2B in section 8 to clarify the Tribunal's powers to give directions and make orders when hearing variation or rescission applications.
Clause 17 amends the Medical Registration Act 1997 as follows.
Clause 17 amends section 10 of the Medical Registration Act 1997 to provide for the appointment of an executive director to the Singapore Medical Council (SMC), in addition to the executive secretary and other employees which are presently provided for.
Clause 17 updates the name of Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School Singapore to Duke-NUS Medical School Singapore in section 25(3) of the Medical Registration Act 1997, reflecting the official name change that occurred in 2015.
Clause 17 amends section 59A(11)(a) and section 59U(1) of the Medical Registration Act 1997 to allow applications for extension of time of up to nine months per extension to be granted for matters before the Disciplinary Tribunal, Complaints Committee or Review Committee. Both provisions also confer discretion to grant longer extensions of time exceeding nine months where there are circumstances beyond the control of the respective tribunal or committee.
The next clause, clause 21 makes three amendments: first, it amends the definition of \"law enforcement agency\" to include any department or office of a public body that is similar to the departments or offices in paragraphs (a) to (d) of that definition, prescribed by the Minister for Home Affairs by notification in the Gazette; second, it amends the definition of \"law enforcement officer\" to include any officer or class of officers of a public body authorised in writing by the Minister; and third, it introduces a definition for \"public body\" to mean a body corporate established by a public Act for the purposes of a public function but excludes Town Councils.
Clause 25 amends section 29(7) of the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act 1993 by providing that forfeited items may be delivered to an authorised officer appointed under section 19 of that Act.
Next, clause 26 amends section 82(2) of the Town Councils Act 1988 by inserting a reference to \"vehicle\" to make it clear that the Minister for National Development has the power to prescribe model by-laws that confer power on Town Councils for the storage and disposal of goods left on common property and that extend to vehicles such as bicycles and personal mobility devices.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, this Bill makes miscellaneous and minor amendments in the manner that I have just described. Sir, I seek to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
[(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 Rahayu Mahzam]. (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":"Electronic Conveyancing and Other Matters Bill ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Minister for Law.
The Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Murali Pillai) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Sir, the conduct of Government business must be trustworthy and efficient. We have a duty not just to ensure the strength of our services that cater to the public, but to make the access to such services, easy, prompt and making as few demands as possible on the time and attention of the Singaporeans we serve. To do this, I introduce the Electronic Conveyancing and Other Matters Bill, which will relate to two of the most consequential decisions many of us will make in our lives.
The first is how we buy property. Here, the Government proposes to amend existing legislation to facilitate the digitalisation of the property conveyancing process.
The second is how we want decisions to be made for us when we no longer have the mental capacity to make them ourselves. Here, we introduce amendments to the Mental Capacity Act 2008 to further digitalise the end-to-end process of making a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA).
The first set of amendments are to facilitate the work of various agencies involved in the conveyancing process, led by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA).
The second set of amendments are proposed by the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF). I will start by first focusing on the amendments relating to property conveyancing.
Property conveyancing is the legal process of transferring the title in a property from one party to another. Singapore has a robust property conveyancing framework, which provides a foundation for stable and reliable property rights and in turn, gives certainty to individuals and businesses alike in their dealings. However, anyone who has gone through the process will know that it is largely manual and paper-based. This is in part due to the lack of a fully digital platform and existing legal requirements for conveyancing transactions. For example, legislation today requires that contracts for sale of immovable property and deeds of conveyance of immovable property must be in writing. Wet-ink signatures for those documents, which, in turn, necessitate physical meetings. In addition, payments are primarily made through cashier's orders that must be purchased and delivered. Physical documentation is, therefore, still integral to the property transaction process. And considerable time is spent preparing, checking, physically delivering and safekeeping these documents. We understand that such requirements can be a source of frustration to members of the public.
For example, in October 2022, a member of public wrote to Minister Josephine Teo, who was then the Minister for Communications and Information, to share his views on what he believed were some anachronistic situations, including having to arrange to make two conveyancing-related payments by cheques. This individual questioned why digital transfers could not be supported, highlighting the inconvenience this posed for individuals, like himself, who had no cheque book. He also highlighted that even the process of opening an account for the purposes of a new cheque book was so tedious that his bank advised that it would be easier for him to borrow someone else's cheque book instead.
Our agencies have been aware of these issues and have been working hard, over the years, to electronise the conveyancing process. One key plank in the journey to transform the current manual and paper-based process to a fully digitalised, end-to-end conveyancing process is the development of the Digital Conveyancing Portal (DCP) by SLA.
The DCP, which is a fully electronic end-to-end conveyancing platform for property transactions, was first announced at the Committee of Supply (COS) debate in 2021. I had also provided an update in March at the COS debate earlier this year.
With the DCP in development, we have been able to reassure members of public, such as the individual I mentioned earlier, of our plans to digitalise the conveyancing process, while we carefully continue the development of the DCP, taking the necessary time to account for the scale and complexities involved in digitalising the entire conveyancing process.
During this time, SLA has also worked with key stakeholders, such as the Council for Estate Agencies (CEA), the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), the Central Provident Fund Board (CPFB), the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS), the Housing and Development Board (HDB), the Singapore Academy of Law, the Law Society of Singapore, the Real Estate Developers' Association of Singapore (REDAS), the Association of Banks in Singapore, banks and financial institutions, to ensure their perspectives have been considered.
Some of the features of the DCP will include, a streamlined and user-friendly experience, with guided workflows and online transaction milestones to help parties navigate the conveyancing process; robust authentication and verification measures to enable parties to sign electronic contracts for sale of immovable property securely; tools that enable seamless communication, coordination and tracking between lawyers, financial institutions, real estate firms, agents and government agencies. When fully implemented, DCP will thus provide increased efficiency, greater convenience, improved coordination and tracking as well as enhanced transparency and security.
This will help to address some of the pain points and feedback which have been raised to us, including those that I had mentioned earlier. For example, facilitating electronic transfers of conveyancing monies will mean buyers no longer have to spend time and effort applying for cheque books which they may otherwise not need, while solicitors no longer need to arrange for physical trips to the bank to arrange for payments to be made by cashier's order. Property agents can also better track the progress of the property transactions under their charge through the DCP instead of manually checking in with the seller or buyer, or their solicitors. Solicitors and clients can also save time and effort by applying digital signatures in a secured platform as opposed to making arrangements for wet-ink signatures.
The DCP is developed in phases. In early 2026, a pilot will be launched to cover the Option-to-Purchase stage of the resale phase of private residential property transactions. SLA has been providing extensive support to parties that wish to start transacting over the DCP, with 14 training workshops held for 28 law firms, 67 lawyers and 112 conveyancing executives who will be participating in the pilot. At present, an estimated 38% of law firms by market share have been onboarded. New functionalities will be added in each phase.
The DCP will also expand the types of property transactions – private residential, commercial and industrial property transactions – in phases. Another enabler in the digitalisation of the conveyancing process is the HDB Flat Portal, which covers the processes relating to the sale and purchase of HDB flats. Launched in January 2021, this integrated online portal streamlines the process of buying and selling HDB flats through features, such as the customised financial calculators, HDB Flat Eligibility letter applications, integrated loan application service and flat listing services.
Currently, the portal already enables HDB to digitalise the processing and approval of resale flat applications. It will be enhanced progressively with more features, such as the use of digital signatures for signing of documents for HDB transactions. Where HDB is appointed to act in the conveyance of an HDB flat, the portal will also enable parties to conduct flat transactions through the use of secure electronic records and electronic payments of conveyancing monies, which will be developed in tandem with DCP. Where the flat's transaction involves private lawyers, the portal will interface with DCP to enable data transmission and cross-platform conveyancing functions.
For conveyancing transactions to be carried out electronically on the DCP and the HDB Flat Portal, existing laws must be updated to create the legal framework for digital conveyancing transactions. This will be done through this Bill. The first set of amendments involve the Electronic Transactions Act 2010 (or ETA). ETA will be amended by adding a new Part 2B to enable conveyancing transactions to be executed electronically through the Prescribed Electronic Transaction Systems (PETS). The PETS will be set out in a new Fifth Schedule to the ETA and will initially be confined to two portals – the DCP and the HDB Flat Portal.
The First Schedule to the ETA will also be amended so that Part 2 of the ETA, which contains the enabling legal framework for electronic records, electronic signatures and electronic contracts, will apply to contracts for the sale or other disposition of immovable property, disposition of an equitable interest with respect to immovable property and conveyances of immovable property executed in a PETS mentioned in sections 16U, 16V and 16W.
The new Part 2B, containing new sections 16T to 16Y, will also provide a framework that will allow contracts and deeds executed electronically through the PETS to meet certain legal form requirements needed for legal validity of equivalent documents executed in writing today. The new section 16U will enable a requirement under the law, including section 6(d) of the Civil Law Act 1909, that contracts for the sale or other disposition of immovable property are to be in writing and signed, to be met by a secure electronic record signed with a prescribed secure electronic signature in a PETS.
The new section 16V similarly enables a requirement under the law, including in section 7(2) of the Civil Law Act 1909, that a disposition of an equitable interest respecting any immovable property or interest in such property is to be in writing and signed, to be met by a secure electronic record signed with a prescribed secure electronic signature in a PETS.
The new section 16W will enable deeds for the conveyance or transfer of any estate or interest in immovable property and deeds of security for payment of monies under a mortgage to be electronically executed validly in PETS if conditions in new section 16W(3) are met.
The new section 16X will allow for remote witnessing as a means to satisfy any legal witnessing requirement in respect of the execution of a conveyancing document, but only under specific conditions. Section 16X only applies to the witnessing of the execution of a conveyancing document in a PETS. In addition, the technology used to enable the witnessing must fulfil certain technical requirements, and witnesses and signatories must both be in Singapore at the time of the remote witnessing.
Deeds which are executed physically today must meet common law legal formalities and requirements that include being in writing on paper or parchment, being sealed and being delivered. As part of the new section, 16W(3) introduces requirements that must be satisfied in order for an electronic record to meet the requirements of a deed under a rule of law that requires a conveyance or transfer of immovable property or an instrument to secure moneys payable under a mortgage to be in the form of a deed.
First, the electronic record must be a secure electronic record that is generated, communicated or received, and stored, in a PETS. It must also be delivered by the person executing it via the PETS. This ensures that such electronic deeds can benefit from the enhanced security mechanisms that PETS afford. Second, the electronic record must clearly state, on its face, that it is a document intended to be a deed, so that there is no ambiguity as to parties' intentions. Third, where the deed is being executed by an individual, the electronic record must be signed in the PETS using a secure electronic signature and the signing must be in the presence of a witness. Currently, the DCP is designed such that parties may only sign using \"Sign with Singpass\".
Where the deed is being executed by a body corporate, apart from the electronic record being required to be signed by its representative or representatives in the PETS using a secure electronic signature, the new section 16W(3)(e) provides two alternative approaches in respect of the requirement to affix the common seal of the body corporate. Firstly, the body corporate may choose to apply its \"electronic seal\", which is an electronic symbol of a seal that is affixed to an electronic record using an appropriately reliable method that identifies the person who affixed the seal. Such an electronic seal will enable a recipient of an electronic deed to more easily verify the authenticity of the electronic deed.
Alternatively, the body corporate may execute the deed in accordance with other statutory requirements in lieu of sealing as provided for under other relevant written law. For example, where the body corporate is a company, it may execute the deed without affixing a common seal in accordance with sections 41B and 41C of the Companies Act 1967, which set out the regime for the execution of deeds without a company seal. Where the body corporate is a limited liability partnership, it may execute the deed in accordance with sections 7 and 8 of the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2005, which set out a regime that is similar to the one under the Companies Act.
In determining these requirements, we considered different factors, such as the technological tools available today, user experience and developments in other jurisdictions. We also took in feedback from the conveyancing community, including the Conveyancing Practice Committee of the Law Society of Singapore and we are indebted to all these partners for their feedback.
For example, there is no requirement for an electronic version of a seal for deeds executed by individuals via the PETS. This takes into account that an individual executing a deed in a PETS would already be subject to enhanced authentication mechanisms, which serve a cautionary function to the individual about the nature of the instrument being executed. The individual would be required to sign the deed using a secure electronic signature in PETS, in the presence of a witness who attests the execution by the individual.
A similar approach is already adopted in other settings in Singapore, where deeds executed electronically for LPA under the Mental Capacity Act 2008 are recognised as deeds without the need for seals, while the insertion of sections 41B and 41C into the Companies Act 1967 in 2017 enabled Singapore companies to dispense with affixing a company seal when executing deeds.
This approach is similar with the requirements in other jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom (UK), which has replaced the sealing requirement for deeds with other similar alternative measures. Industry feedback from consultations conducted by SLA have also been supportive of adopting this position.
The Bill will also amend the First Schedule of the ETA to extend the application of Part 2 of the ETA to contracts for the sale or other disposition of immovable property, dispositions of an equitable interest respecting immovable property, conveyances of immovable property, and instruments by deed to secure payment of moneys under a mortgage, that are executed in a PETS.
Part 2 of the ETA contains the enabling legal framework for electronic records, electronic signatures and electronic contracts.
Previously, these provisions did not apply to contracts for the sale or other disposition of immovable property, dispositions of an equitable interest respecting immovable property, conveyances of immovable property and instruments by deed to secure payments of monies under a mortgage, due to the inadequacy of technological infrastructure and safeguards to ensure the security and integrity of electronic property transactions at that time.
However, with the development of the DCP and the HDB Flat Portal, we now have the confidence in the infrastructure that will be put in place to support electronic property transactions. The insertion of the necessary enabling legal framework in the new Part 2B of the ETA now makes it possible to extend the application of Part 2 of the ETA to such conveyancing-related documents.
In addition to the ETA, amendments to the Singapore Land Authority Act 2001 will be made to empower SLA to establish an electronic transaction system, the DCP, to enable persons to carry out conveyancing transactions using electronic instruments. The new provisions also provide for the prescription of requirements for the use of DCP, certain processes, evidentiary provisions as well as the processes for the correction of certain types of errors in the records of DCP.
There will also be appropriate liability protection for the SLA for any loss or damage by any person arising from the person using the DCP in an improper manner, or arising from any malfunction or any cybersecurity incident, if SLA had acted in good faith and with reasonable care.
Similar amendments will be made to the Housing and Development Act 1959, to enable HDB to operate its HDB Flat Portal for public housing transactions.
The Housing and Development Act will also be amended to provide for HDB's execution of electronic deeds using an electronic seal of the Board, instead of a physical common seal, where it is required or permitted under law. An instance of such a law is the new section 16W(3)(e)(i) of the ETA. As an alternative to the common seal, the amended Housing and Development Act will also allow for execution by signature of at least two duly authorised officers, for deeds relating to the conveyancing of HDB flats.
Next, I will touch on the portion of the Bill that will introduce amendments to the Mental Capacity Act, which is overseen by my colleagues from MSF. These amendments are being introduced to increase the convenience of making an LPA.
The LPA is a legal instrument through which a person, called a \"donor\", appoints one or more persons, called \"donees\", to make decisions on the donor's personal welfare and/or property and affairs, should the donor lose mental capacity to make such decisions. The execution of an instrument conferring powers of the kind in an LPA has to be witnessed in-person by a Certificate Issuer.
In 2021, the Mental Capacity Act was amended to require as a default that an instrument to be registered as an LPA must be executed electronically and electronically submitted for registration with the Public Guardian via the Office of the Public Guardian Online (OPGO). Although this is a default rule, the Public Guardian may make an exception if the instrument cannot be executed on the Public Guardian's electronic transaction system, such as for donors who are unable to make or sign the instrument electronically due to a physical disability. Today, more than 95% of LPAs are submitted digitally via the OPGO.
The Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act 2021 also included a provision enabling the remote witnessing of execution of an LPA by certain donors, specifically where the Public Guardian is satisfied that there is a good reason why the donor cannot appear physically before a Certificate Issuer to execute his instrument to be registered as an LPA. This amendment has not been commenced as we now intend to avail remote witnessing to a wider segment of donors with low-risk LPA applications, provided certain legislated criteria are met.
The Bill will do this by introducing a new paragraph 1A in the First Schedule to the Mental Capacity Act to provide that the Public Guardian may, on the application of a donor, allow him to have the execution of his electronic instrument witnessed remotely if all of the following criteria are satisfied.
First, the donor must be under 75 years of age.
Second, the proposed donee must belong to a legislated category of persons whose relationship with the donor makes it likely that the person will act in the donor's best interests, such as family members of the donor.
Third, the Public Guardian must be satisfied that none of the following risks are significant: (a) that fraud or undue pressure is used to induce the donor to execute the instrument or to execute the instrument to appoint a particular person as the donee; (b) that the donor lacks capacity to execute the instrument; and (c) that any of the proposed donees will not act in the donor's best interests.
Donors who do not fulfil the eligibility criteria will need to have the execution of their instrument witnessed in-person by a Certificate Issuer.
We will also put in place robust safeguards to minimise the risk of potential fraud or abuse during the remote witnessing process, including requiring the Certificate Issuer to declare that he had maintained proper records of the session and will be able to furnish the information to facilitate any future investigations, if needed. Certificate Issuers also retain the full discretion not to proceed with certifying the donor's understanding of the purpose and scope of LPA, and that there is no fraud or undue pressure being used to induce the donor to create an LPA, should they have any concerns that the donor has lost his mental capacity or is subject to fraud or undue pressure during the remote witnessing session.
Finally, the new paragraph 1A(1) to be inserted in the First Schedule to Mental Capacity Act aligns the key requirements of the remote witnessing method with those under the new section 16X(3) of the ETA. This means that the conditions that must be fulfilled for remote witnessing to satisfy any legal witnessing requirements will be consistent across the Mental Capacity Act and ETA, including the requirement that the witness and signatory must both be in Singapore at the time of remote witnessing.
Mr Speaker, to conclude, this Bill will streamline conveyancing in Singapore. Through DCP and the HDB Flat Portal, property transactions will be transformed significantly from a paper-based process to a secure digital journey that benefits all Singaporeans selling and buying properties. The legislative amendments have been carefully considered with security and integrity at their core. The PETS will incorporate strong and secure safeguards and measures that will ensure that the integrity of property transactions remain uncompromised as we move into the digital age.
This Bill will also enable a larger number of donors to benefit from the convenience of remote witnessing of the execution of instruments to be registered as LPAs, while ensuring sufficient safeguards.
Sir, these amendments present a significant step in Singapore's digitalisation journey and show how the Government uses technology to protect and advance the interests of Singaporeans. This Bill brings greater convenience and efficiency while maintaining the strong foundations of our property transaction system. It also enhances the ease and convenience of making LPAs and, by so doing, encourages LPA adoption so as to protect the dignity and interests of Singaporeans, who may lose mental capacity later in life.
Sir, some of the key amendments in this Bill are being done with the support of my colleagues from the Ministry of National Development (MND) and MSF. If hon Members have queries on the HDB Portal and MND-related issues, Senior Minister of State Sun Xueling will respond and for LPA and MSF-related issues, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua will take these queries. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.
Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, I support this Bill. I declare my interest as a lawyer that acts in property-related disputes and a partner at Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP, a law firm that has a conveyancing practice.
This Bill introduces an important tool to simplify the conveyancing process. It provides users the option to deal electronically with the sale of property. Other jurisdictions such as England and Australia have also moved to permit electronic conveyancing.
Currently, the typical process for selling a property involves the sellers issuing an option to the purchaser in exchange for the payment of an option fee, usually 1% of the value of the property. This option must then be exercised by payment of an option fee, usually a further 9% of the price of the property. Once the option is exercised, the purchaser then has an interest in the property and the seller is under an obligation to complete the sale in exchange for payment by the purchaser of the remaining amount of the price.
Currently, all these processes take place with the exchange of paper documents. The options are issued in writing in paper. Payment to exercise the option is made either by cashier’s order or cheque, usually to the seller’s designated lawyers. Thereafter, if the purchaser is getting a loan or using CPF, the purchaser’s lawyers have to deal with the sellers lawyers, CPF Board and the bank and ensure that payments from all these parties along with the seller are ready for execution at the designated time for completion.
Generally, in property transactions, time is of the essence, and if any deadline for payment is missed, that will give the other party a right not to proceed with a sale and even ask for damages. In a fast moving property market, this can lead to significant claims against any party responsible for missing a deadline including purchaser, seller, lawyers, especially if a transaction does not go through.
Against this backdrop, having the option to perform various parts of the conveyancing transaction electronically should simplify the process. This Bill allows the seller to now issue an option electronically and for the buyer to exercise this option electronically. It is also possible for payments to be made into an electronic platform, obviating the need for cheques and cashier’s orders. Additionally, parties will have real time visibility over funds available from bank and in the CPF. So, this should reduce deadline jitters.
I envisage this Bill will be a valuable service that will align with the movement of the financial industry away from paper transactions. I do have a few suggestions in relation to this Bill and the electronic conveyancing process.
First, I note that the operative mechanism here is that any transaction in the electronic transaction mechanism will now satisfy the requirements of section 6(d) of the Civil Law Act for a transfer of property. This means that this rule is not intended to replace, but rather to supplement the existing methods of conveying property. This will mean a slightly more cumbersome process for parties in the industry as it means they still need to be familiar with the old processes. I would like to clarify with the Senior Minister of State if the intention is to slowly have this electronic transaction process replace the current system.
I think it is sensible to have both systems operating concurrently for a transitional period, but if the Government’s intention is to transition all transactions electronically, which I think is sensible, I would suggest this be telegraphed to the market and nudges be put in place to encourage more people to transact electronically in this transition process.
Second, where there are mistakes in the form or omissions, for example, if a selling party does not indicate the address of its conveyancing solicitor or indicates an incorrect address, under the law currently, as long as a buyer does everything in his power to indicate his intention to exercise the option, the court would generally uphold the transaction. In relation to paper options, sometimes the exercising solicitor’s name is even left blank.
I think it will be important for the electronic transaction system to also have some flexibility for parties to record their exercise of the option or intention to make completion payments, even if for some reason the seller may have made some mistakes in the electronic forms. Disputes have traditionally arisen around whether the formalities for exercise of the option were met where a seller may wish to avoid a transaction.
Third, the Land Register is generally taken as an authoritative record for the legal owner of a property. However, in a fast moving market, unscrupulous sellers may sometimes issue options to more than one buyer – a practice that has been the subject of several reported court decisions. In these situations, the first party to exercise and register his or her interest in the Land Register, would generally prevail over those who register later. One suggestion would be to see if this electronic transaction system can be linked to the Land Register such that if an option were issued in relation to the property, this may be automatically be reflected on the Land Register without the need to lodge a caveat.
All my suggestions are aimed at the future of electronic transaction system. I think this is an important improvement and I thank the Ministry and SLA for this initiative, which should make the conveyancing process simpler for everyone transacting in property.
On the electronic facilitation of the LPA process, this is also to be welcomed and generally, I agree that any process that makes it easy for parties to enter into an LPA, the better it is. The only small caveat I would add is that the Act envisions that where the power of attorney is donated in favour of a family member, this is one of the factors that suggest that the transaction is low risk. The only point I would make, which I am sure the Senior Minister of State is familiar with, is that based on the reported cases, most disputes around powers of attorney are disputes amongst family members. I hope that presumption will not be given too much weight if there are many other family members who are not involved in the process. Notwithstanding this comment, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Fadli Fawzi.
Mr Fadli Fawzi (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I wish to speak about my concerns regarding clause 16 of the Bill. Before I begin, I would like to declare my interest as a lawyer in private practice who has witnessed and certified LPAs. I also conduct legal clinics on LPAs as part of my grassroots work.
Clause 16 changes how LPAs can be issued by the Certificate Issuer which could either be lawyers, psychiatrists, or selected doctors accredited by the Public Guardian. Currently, it is a requirement for the person giving powers under the LPA, called the donor, to be in the physical presence of the Certificate Issuer. This Certificate Issuer must directly witness the donor using his Singpass credentials to digitally sign the document.
The proposed amendment removes this requirement. The donor does not have to be in the same place as the Certificate Issuer to sign the document so long as two-way visual communication is maintained, such as through an online meeting application. I appreciate how remote signing is convenient if the donor and the Certificate Issuer cannot meet in person. This would especially help donors who have mobility difficulties, or perhaps live too far from the Certificate Issuer.
Sir, I believe the relevant Ministries are aware that the remote signing of LPAs can carry some risks, which explains why the Bill introduces some safeguards.
For a start, anyone who wishes to take advantage of the remote signing option will need to apply to the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG). The OPG will then consider each application on a case-by-case basis. To qualify to make an application, the Bill stipulates certain conditions. The first two conditions are: one, that the donor must be under 75 years of age; and two, that the proposed donees must be either a professional donee working for remuneration, or be in specific family relationships.
Beyond that, the OPG also has to make an assessment that there is no significant risk in three aspects: one, that there is no significant risk of fraud or undue pressure on the donor to appoint particular donees; two, no significant risk that the donor lacks mental capacity; and three, no significant risk that the proposed donees will not act in the donor’s best interest.
While I support the Bill in its intentions to make it easier to assist donors who are immobile, I wish to raise some concerns when the LPAs involve donees who are family members.
It bears remembering that LPAs involve a substantial transfer of autonomy and are often done by older people. The donor is authorising a close relative to have lasting power over their personal property and also, to make personal or medical decisions, when the donor’s mental capacity is lost. There is thus always the risk that the donor's assets could be depleted by someone whom the donor is physically and emotionally dependent on.
For cases involving family members, it is straightforward to determine if the donor is under 75 years old and whether the proposed donees fall within certain categories of family relationships. However, any assessment about the risks is necessarily more subjective in nature. How does the OPG determine that there is no significant risk or fraud or undue pressure, and no significant risk that the proposed donees will not act in the donor’s best interest?
Practically speaking, given the workload and resources of the OPG today, does the OPG have the capacity to carefully conduct case-by-case enquiries into the family circumstances? Or would it be the case that the application process would be largely pro-forma – that so long as the documents are in order, the approval for remote signing would generally be granted?
In other words, how would the OPG be able to properly determine that there is no significant risk that an intended LPA will be to the donor’s detriment? It would be beneficial to get some clarity about what we can expect from the OPG in terms of specific measures and procedures.
Moreover, remote signing can also place the Certificate Issuer at a disadvantage in discharging his or her duty. The fact that the categories of Certificate Issuers involve people with medical or legal training suggests that a Certificate Issuer has to be more than a mere rubber stamp. Rather, there seems to be an implied responsibility for the Certificate Issuer to assess the competency and fitness of the donor to make an LPA.
In my own experience of certifying LPAs, I have found it helpful to not only pay attention to what the donor informs me, but to also observe the dynamics between the donor and donee, through their demeanour and body language.
If I believe that the donor is not able to speak freely, or the donor appears anxious or flustered, I have the option of speaking with the donor alone to confirm that the donor is not under any undue external pressure.
In the case of remote signing, however, the Certificate Issuer does not have the assurance of being able to talk with the donor alone or even verifying that there is nobody hovering around the donor. In all likelihood, the donee might even be sitting beside the donor to guide them through the remote signing, since the donor might not be tech-savvy to do it alone. Of course, these risks can also be present with an in-person signing. My point, however, is that remote signing increases these risks.
This risk is also compounded by the fact that unlike deputies appointed by the court, donees appointed by donors need not make regular reports to the OPG on the status of the donor’s assets. In an unfortunate scenario, any misuse of funds may go undetected for years.
On another note, Sir, I wonder if the OPG expects a high take-up rate for remote signing. Considering that the new law will still require both the donor and the Certificate Issuer to be in Singapore, it might still be much easier and faster to arrange an in-person signing, rather than making an application for remote signing and waiting for the OPG’s approval to proceed.
If the concern is to make the LPA procedures more convenient and accessible to donors, might I suggest the option of introducing more categories of Certificate Issuers be considered? In the UK, registered social workers can witness and certify LPAs. I am aware that many of our social workers have a heavy workload. But there may be some who may be interested to be Certificate Issuers. Perhaps the Government can open the option for them to receive training and accreditation from the OPG?
Another option is to hold more legal clinics and roadshows on LPAs in the neighborhood. I understand this has been ongoing in many constituencies and should continue. In Malay, Sir.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, one last point. In the previous Sitting, I filed a question about the demographic breakdown of LPA donors. The data says that 350,000 LPAs have been registered as of 15 August this year. However, out of the 350,000, Indian and Malay donors only accounted for 3% and 2% respectively.
Hence, other than the suggestions above, could the relevant Ministries also consider more vernacular outreach, perhaps through community organisations, to help more Singaporeans to understand the benefit of LPAs?
And for the Malay/Muslim community specifically, could the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS) play a more active role in spreading awareness of the importance of making an LPA and also organising LPA information sessions. MUIS can also collaborate with our mosques on this matter. For example, MUIS has organised similar events in October 2020, by conducting a Fatwa Seminar on LPAs and Advanced Care Planning. These should be encouraged.
(In English): Sir, in conclusion, I appreciate the general trend towards conducting business and legal transactions remotely. However, I believe that, in the case of LPAs, we should go to where the people are.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.
Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, I declare that I am a lawyer by profession and oversees the conveyancing department of a law practice that has indicated interest in signing up for the DCP as offered by SLA. I rise in support of the Electronic Conveyancing and Other Matters Bill.
I appreciate the objectives behind the introduction of DCP. It streamlines the conveyancing process, enhances convenience and minimises the risk of clerical errors, issues that are often only discovered at the completion stage. Such errors can lead to professional negligence claims, delays in buyers collecting their keys to commence the renovations and even for sellers receiving their proceeds later to purchase their next home.
That said, I seek clarification on the current take-up rate for DCP. Has SLA secured sufficient buy-in from all or if not, majority of the stakeholders, such as the real estate agents, property developers, banks that offer mortgage loans and law firms that provide conveyancing services? If not, what are the reasons and how will they be addressed?
My next clarification pertains to whether the DCP is intended to eventually be the only platform for conveyancing, the way how eLitigation is used today in the legal practice? If no, a real concern could be that old habits die hard. Without a mandated shift, certain stakeholders, such as banks and law firms, may be resistant to change their established workflows and standard operating procedures. This could lead to confusion. For instance, under current arrangements, deposits or conveyancing monies can be held in either: one, a law firm's conveyancing account; two, with the Singapore Academy of Law under its Conveyancing Money Service; or three, via DCP's Digital Conveyancing Account. Each of these options involve different workflows, timelines for deposits and procedures for releasing its funds.
To kickstart adoption of DCP, I suggest that the transactions involving Government agencies, such as HDB and the CPF Board, take the lead in using DCP. Additionally, the Singapore Academy of Law could consider sunsetting its current escrow fee arrangements with a view to eventually merging them into the DCP framework.
I also recommend that the SLA partner with institutions, like the Temasek Polytechnic's Diploma in Law and Management, Law Society of Singapore and Council of Estate Agencies, to organise workshops to train the relevant stakeholders, such as students, paralegals, lawyers and real estate agents, in DCP skills so that we can start developing a skilled workforce to support this transition.
My next point is in respect of the new section 16W of the Bill which, if passed, will allow deeds relating to immovable property to be executed virtually on PETS. Does this extend to Powers of Attorney for the sale, rental or general management of a real property? Currently, under section 48 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (CLPA), the original Power of Attorney, engrossed with a seal, must be deposited with the High Court. Will the virtual execution on PETS satisfy this requirement moving forward or will amendments to the CLPA be needed? In Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] SLA's DCP makes property transactions seamless, transparent and secure for buyers, sellers, lawyers and estate salespersons. In this regard, I would like to ask the Government: how will the Government assure stakeholders, especially those SMEs and elderly who are not IT savvy, of the safety and security of DCP, in particular, what are the safeguards against abuse, scams or cybersecurity threats?
(In English): Notwithstanding my clarifications, Mr Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.
Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. This Bill modernises how Singapore manages property transactions and legal authorisations. It enables the use of secure electronic systems for conveyancing, allows remote witnessing of legal instruments and introduces important reforms to facilitate digital signing of LPA. These are practical, necessary changes, especially in a society that is increasingly digital in how we live, how we work and plan for the future.
Sir, today's conveyancing processes involves up to 17 stakeholders: lawyers, banks, CPF, IRAS, HDB, SLA and many, many more. Despite years of digital progress, much of this process remains manual, paper-based and prone to coordination issues. The amendments in this Bill provide a legal foundation for property transactions to be conducted fully through PETS. These include systems, like DCP, which is developed by SLA. This shift enables electronic contracts and deeds, secure digital signatures and the remote witnessing of execution.
I believe that these capabilities are not just about efficiency. They also reduce error, increase transparency and improve the overall experience for buyers, sellers and professionals involved. Stakeholders have long highlighted inefficiencies, from repeated data entries to the delay in cheque processing. Law firms and banks have spoken about how one mortgage transaction can take up to 50 minutes just to check and reconcile documents. This Bill addresses these bottlenecks meaningfully.
Sir, another welcomed provision of this Bill is the facilitation of remote witnessing of LPAs. This is an important step. As our population continues to age, more individuals are planning ahead to safeguard their care and decision-making. But the current LPA process still requires an in-person processing and witnessing which can be difficult for seniors with mobility issues or caregivers with limited time. This Bill allows eligible individuals under 75 with appropriate donees, to complete their LPAs via live audio-visual witnessing, under strict safeguards. This builds on the earlier digitalisation of the LPA process through OPGO. It is a meaningful reform that expands access, while preserving integrity.
Sir, as we move to a fully digital system, we must also pay close attention to readiness and trust. These are important issues to stand out. There are still segments of our population, particularly our seniors and our low-income families, who may lack digital access or confidence in the system. Therefore, we must ensure that no one is disadvantaged because they are unfamiliar with the new system. Similarly, not all conveyancing firms have equal digital capabilities. Some smaller practices may face resource constraints in adopting new workflows.
Mr Speaker, to that end, I would like to seek clarifications on the following. Will there be training or transition support provided for smaller law firms and service providers? What measures will be taken to ensure that the new systems are inclusive, especially for residents who may struggle with digital tools or with the language? And will there be community-based digital navigators or help channels for those who need assistance?
Sir, as we digitise legal documents and financial transactions, cybersecurity will continue and always become a critical issue.
This Bill rightly mentions and introduces safeguards, such as the clear definitions for secure electronic records and signatures, requirements for attestation in digital witnessing and provisions for error correction and cybersecurity incidents under the amended SLA Act. I believe these are all really important. But public confidence depends not just on what the law allows, but how risks are managed in practice.
So, may I ask to that end, what cybersecurity standards will the prescribed systems be subjected to? Will there be regular system testing or independent audits that can be regularly done and how will the authorities communicate these safeguards to the public to build greater confidence? When large sums and legally binding documents are involved, Singaporeans must know that the digital infrastructure is not just about convenience, but of course, trustworthy.
Sir, we have seen during COVID-19 how physical processes can become fragile in the face of disruption. Remote work, lockdowns and safe distancing rules revealed the limits of a manual, paper-dependent system. This Bill ensures that critical legal and housing processes can continue securely, even when in-person meetings are not possible. It is a future-proofing measure which I welcome because it is not just a tech upgrade. Sir, may I continue in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, I support this Bill because it modernises the property conveyancing process and improves access to important legal documents, such as the LPA.
This move will enhance efficiency, security and convenience for all parties, including senior citizens and families who require additional support. It is important that we ensure that in our journey towards digitalisation, no group is left behind. This includes seniors, whom I mentioned earlier, and those who are not fluent in English.
I welcome this measure and hope that its implementation will be inclusive and build public confidence towards this system.
(In English): This Bill supports a more efficient, secure and accessible conveyancing system, and expands legal access for those planning for their future care. As implementation begins, I urge the Government to continue working closely with stakeholders across the law, finance, tech and the community sector to ensure that this digital transition is smooth, inclusive and robust. Technology must not just make systems smarter. It must make them more humane and more accessible for all. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Lee Hui Ying.
Ms Lee Hui Ying (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Electronic Conveyancing and Other Matters Bill. This Bill facilitates the implementation of a new DCP, allowing property transactions to be handled electronically. I welcome this step in our continued journey to become a Smart Nation. The new conveyancing portal makes our property transactions more efficient and further strengthens our place as a future-ready financial hub. Notwithstanding my support, I have four points of clarifications.
First, for our seniors. As more of our Government interactions enter the digital space, it comes at a cost to our seniors. Our seniors have gone through most of their lives without digital tools and now they find themselves in the midst of a rapid roll-out of new digital platforms in each part of their life. I have strong faith in the ability of our seniors to adapt and learn. But, I also worry that as the world becomes increasingly foreign, it can leave some feeling disempowered and disorganised. This is especially so for isolated seniors who do not have younger family members to help them.
In a 2023 study on Digital Literacy by the Centre for Research on Successful Ageing, only 54% of respondents were confident of using a new digital application on their own. So, it is our responsibility to make the Smart Nation transition as easy as possible for our seniors.
For the new DCP, can the Minister clarify what parts of these new systems would be accessed by retail property owners? Or would the platform be operated primarily by stakeholders, such as lawyers, bankers and property agents? Are these public-facing user interfaces designed with our seniors in mind? Support for multiple languages, visual impairment or simply good design thinking, this would go a long way in helping our seniors.
Second, digitalisation brings convenience and efficiency but also risks. In the last few years, we have all experienced how the rise of digital banking services has led to an increase in scams, cheating some seniors out of their retirement savings. In a recent survey by PEXA, Australia's version of a digital conveyancing system, 97% of respondents missed signs of fraudulent activity in their property transactions.
Has the Ministry assessed whether an electronic portal like this might increase the risks of scams, especially for our seniors? Is it possible for a scammer or even a family member exerting undue influence over a senior to abuse the system? Could the use of digital systems make it harder for stakeholders to detect when some improper conduct is taking place?
Third, the Bill creates a new process for the remote witnessing of donors executing LPAs. I welcome the increased convenience for executing LPAs and hope this will encourage more Singaporeans to get their LPA done early to prepare for life's events or old age.
I note that one condition for remote witnessing is that the donor must be under 75 years of age. I agree, in principle, that for older Singaporeans, more safeguards may be appropriate before allowing remote witnessing, but the choice of 75 years appears a little arbitrary.
Can the Senior Minister of State explain how the age of 75 was chosen? Could this be interpreted as a general rule that those above 75 have a higher risk of reduced mental capacity? Will this number be constantly and regularly reviewed as ageing trends in our society change?
Lastly, this Bill is a missed opportunity to go further and clarify other formalities and technical terms around executing legal documents in Singapore. For example, this Bill allows deeds, which have specific legal requirements, to be executed electronically. But why not abolish the concept of a deed entirely?
The difference between a deed and an agreement is a technical one that only lawyers are concerned with. There is some uncertainty whether a deed can be enforceable if it is not in wet ink or missing a red sticker. These are old practices that carry little meaning to those signing them, but also increases business costs.
So, as we become a Smart Nation, Sir, we can boldly abolish dated technical legal instruments and replace them with more intuitive processes that are more consistent with what we do in our modern world. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, I am concerned about the impact on our elderly after the amendments.
The DCP is a new platform. Are these public-facing user interfaces designed with our seniors in mind? Support for multiple languages, visual impairment, or simply good design thinking, would go a long way to helping our seniors. Furthermore, whilst digitalisation brings convenience, it also brings risks. We all know the threat that scams pose to the public, especially to the elderly. I would like to understand whether this new platform will increase the risk of scams or abuse.
Finally, I welcome the increased convenience on standards to allow more people to complete LPA procedures online. However, one of the conditions is that the donor must be under 75 years old. I understand this may be an additional safeguard for older individuals, but I would like to know how the age of 75 was determined. Will it be adjusted in future based on changing social circumstances?
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill moves us in this direction and I hope to see the Government continuing on this momentum. Notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill marks a pivotal step in modernising Singapore's conveyancing process.
It will make property transactions faster, more transparent and more efficient, in line with our Smart Nation vision. Yet as we digitalise, we must remember that buying or selling a home is not just a legal exchange. It is a deeply human experience, a lifelong dream for some and an essential lifeline for others. As we move this process online, we must ensure it remains safe, inclusive and trustworthy for all, from young couples buying their first Build-To-Order flats to retirees unlocking equity in their golden years.
I have several clarifications on the Bill.
Mr Speaker, Sir, my first point is on digital inclusion. We have seen how initiatives, like Singpass and LifeSG, have set a new standard for convenience for many Singaporeans. Yet, we also know that not everyone is equally comfortable navigating digital platforms, particularly our seniors and small firms still reliant on paper-based workflows.
DCP will bring together up to 17 different stakeholders, from lawyers, to banks, to HDB and SLA, into one united ecosystem. That is an immense leap in efficiency. But it also introduces a human challenge. How do we ensure that no one gets left behind?
I urge the Ministry to consider assisted digital services at community touchpoints, such as libraries, community clubs and ServiceSG centres, where residents can receive guided in-person help from trained officers. Such digital assistance can make the difference between empowerment and exclusion.
Next, can the Minister assure the House that residents will not be burdened by new system charges and that measures, such as fee caps or subsidies, will be introduced, especially for first-time buyers or lower-income households? Furthermore, as many small law firms rely heavily on conveyancing work, can the Government share the onboarding and training programmes to help these firms transition smoothly to the new system? This will not only safeguard livelihoods but also preserve healthy competition in the legal sector. If the portal faces downtime on a critical completion day, what manual fallback or contingency processes will protect users from financial losses or penalties? Digital convenience must never become digital compulsion.
My second point, Mr Speaker, Sir, concerns remote witnessing. This is a forward-thinking feature. It allows individuals, especially seniors or persons with mobility challenges, to execute documents electronically without having to travel.
However, under section 16X of the Bill, remote witnessing is currently limited to witnesses physically located in Singapore. This may inadvertently exclude Singaporeans who are temporarily based overseas, for instance, those on overseas postings or students abroad. Could the Ministry explore secure extensions, perhaps through our embassies, consulates or accredited notaries, so that they, too, can safely participate?
Additionally, for residents who lack access to devices or who are not digitally confident, can we set up assisted witnessing stations at community hubs or HDB branches, equipped with secure connectivity and trained staff?
Most importantly, the rules governing remote witnessing should be designed with compassion and flexibility, accommodating medical or disability-related circumstances. Because for a hospitalised senior or a person with limited mobility, accessibility is not a convenience. It is dignity.
Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, I note that there have been instances where lawyers in property transactions falsely certified documents. One example is the case of Ms K Manickam, who attested that she had witnessed several signings even though the documents had not been signed in her presence.
Would the electronic system be able to ensure that individuals who are required to attest to the validity or correctness of documents do in fact fulfill this duty? In addition, electronic systems may create the false impression that digital transactions are somehow less formal or serious. Are there measures in place to ensure that all parties and stakeholders understand the gravity of these transactions and that, despite the electronic system, the expectation remains that everyone involved is accountable for the verifications set out in the relevant documents?
Mr Speaker, Sir, my fourth point is about redress and liability. Even the most secure systems can experience glitches or cyber incidents. Section 25 of the Bill rightly empowers SLA to correct errors or omissions arising from system malfunctions or cybersecurity incidents after notifying affected parties and allowing representations. This is a prudent safeguard. But for residents, especially families in the midst of completing a purchase, a few hours' delay can translate into real stress and financial penalties, especially when tax deadlines or stamp duties are triggered.
So, when a transaction fails due to no fault of the user, who bears the cost? Will there be an ex-gratia or compensation framework for affected parties, particularly home buyers who may face cascading penalties through no fault of their own? Furthermore, will SLA publish audit trails or digital transaction logs so that parties can easily verify what went wrong and when? As digital conveyancing scales up, what redundancy capabilities will ensure that the system can handle peak volumes, for example, after policy announcements that trigger surges in property transactions?
My fifth point, Mr Speaker, Sir, is on data privacy and scam protection. I believe Members earlier, like Dr Wan Rizal and Ms Lee Hui Ying, have raised similar issues. Property transactions involve highly sensitive financial and personal information. The Bill allows SLA and HDB to provide non-confidential data for transparency and analytics. This can certainly enhance policy planning and public understanding of market trends. But what exactly qualifies as non-confidential?
Can the Senior Minister of State clarify what data use limits and access safeguards will be in place to prevent misuse, such as bulk scraping or phishing attempts? Will individuals have the option to opt out of having personal data publicly accessible? Likewise, will any of the data in this portal be used to fight crime? What jurisdiction will be extended to the use of data in this portal without a resident's permission for criminal investigation?
I also urge the Ministry to anticipate the evolving threat landscape, including deepfake impersonations in remote witnessing and phishing attempts masquerading as official DCP communications. Given recent public sector data breaches, security assurance must be visible and continual, not just technical but also educational. Residents must know how to verify authentic communication from the system.
Trust is the currency of digital governance. Once it is lost, convenience means little.
Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I turn to record retention. Physical title deeds may soon become a relic of the past. But digital records raise a new set of questions. How do we ensure permanence, authenticity and accessibility across generations? Under section 23(5) of the amended SLA Act, records of conveyancing transactions must be retained for a prescribed period. But for many residents, property ownership extends decades beyond any prescribed timeline.
Can the Minister assure us that digital conveyancing records will be archived indefinitely and remain accessible to homeowners or their legal representatives, even after technology platforms evolve or vendors change? Can residents always download a verified, tamper-proof copy of their documents, free of charge, for their own safekeeping?
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill moves us closer to a future where property transactions are seamless, secure and digital, where what once took weeks can now be done in days and where technology serves not as a barrier, but as a bridge. But let us also remember what this Bill truly represents. It is not just about faster processing or cleaner interfaces. It is about people, ensuring that every Singaporean, young or old, rich or poor, feels confident and included in this new digital journey.
We must build a system that is inclusive so that no senior or small firm is left behind. We must make it compassionate, with remote witnessing that understands the realities of caregiving, disability and distance. We must keep it accountable so that when things go wrong, there is redress, transparency and fairness. We must ensure it is secure because in a world of rising scams and cyber threats, trust is our strongest currency. We must make it enduring so that the records of one generation remain safe in the hands of the next.
If we can do all these, then this Bill will be more than just a technical milestone. It will be a statement of values. It will say that in Singapore, even as we digitalise, we do not lose our human touch. We use technology to lift people up, not to leave them behind. We build systems that are efficient, yes, but also empathetic, transparent and just.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the digital home we build today is not made of bricks or beams. It is built on trust, on the faith that when we click that button, sign that document or buy that first home, the system will stand by our side. So, let us build this new chapter of our Smart Nation with courage and care. Let us create not only a faster system, but a fairer one. Not just a connected nation, but a confident people. Above all, let us remember: a truly smart nation is not defined by how many systems we build, but by how deeply we keep faith with the people they are meant to serve. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law (Mr Eric Chua): Sir, I thank Members for their support for the Bill and for the queries related to the amendments to the Mental Capacity Act. I am heartened by the positive reception to the proposed expansion of remote witnessing to more donors in the making of the LPA.
Since the introduction of the OPG online system in 2022, we have observed that monthly LPA registrations have almost doubled. In 2024, more than 95% of LPAs were made electronically. Many users have found the online LPA application process convenient and user-friendly.
To Dr Wan Rizal's concern that there are segments of our population who may lack digital access or confidence, we fully empathise and will continue with community partners and ServiceSG Centres to provide the necessary support.
I would like to assure Members that remote witnessing is intended to be an additional option, not the only one. Anyone can still visit a Certificate Issuer to do an in-person witnessing and n fact, we fully expect that some donors may still prefer to do so.
Ms Lee Hui Ying asked how we decided on the age criterion of 75 years. MSF is guided by the 2024 study on the Well-Being of Singapore Elderly (WiSE) by the Institute of Mental Health, which found that there is a significant increase in the prevalence of dementia amongst those aged 75 and above. This also corresponds with our experience in practice, with the number of alerts to the Public Guardian on the well-being of individuals aged 75 and above, is about 3.5 times that those aged 65 to 74. MSF will continue to monitor trends and if needed, propose adjustments to the age criterion to ensure its relevance.
Mr Fadli Fawzi asked about how the Public Guardian would ensure that there are no significant risk of fraud or undue pressure on the donor in the LPA making process, and that the donee will not act in the best interest of the donor.
Before donors can have the LPA's witness remotely, the Public Guardian must assess and approve only donors who meet the legislated criteria. These prescribed criteria ensure that donors with lower risk applications are eligible for remote witnessing.
On top of the age criterion raised by Ms Lee Hui Ying, remote witnessing is only extended to donors who intend to appoint donees who are family members or professional deputies and licensed trust companies. This is because family members are likely to act in the best interest of the donor and in addition, professional deputies and licensed trust companies are regulated, so there is a lower risk that they will abuse or exploit the donor.
Mr Vikram Nair and Mr Fadli Fawzi earlier raised concerns about LPA related disputes involving family members. Most disputes involve family members, because most appointed donees today are family members of the donor.
The whistle-blowing reports received by the OPG tend to come from other family members of the donor. We would like to underscore that, besides reviewing whether the donor's application meets the legislated criteria, the Public Guardian will also factor in other available information, such as the donor's history and past interactions with the OPG, as well as concerns raised by relevant individuals that may suggest that the donor is at risk of fraud or undue pressure.
During the LPA certification process, be it through in-person or remote witnessing, the Certificate Issuers play a critical role as gatekeepers of risk. At the point of LPA execution, Certificate Issuers verify that: one, no fraud or undue pressure was used to induce the donor to create the LPA; two, the donor understands the purpose of the instrument; and three, there is nothing else that would prevent an LPA from being created by the instrument.
Certificate Issuers must also be satisfied that during the session the donor is executing the instrument in private by requiring the donor to pan the camera around the room to show that there is no third party present and if the Certificate Issuer assesses that the donor may be vulnerable to fraud or undue pressure, the Certificate Issuer has the full discretion to require an in-person witnessing or to refuse to certify the LPA.
In addition, we have put in place administrative safeguards, such as having the Certificate Issuers document and submit to OPG records of the certification process, including the reason for any third party's presence and the identity of the third party in their notes. And this includes how they have assessed that the donor understands the purpose of an LPA and the scope of authority conferred under it.
We will also provide training to prepare to prepare Certificate Issuers for remote witnessing, so that they are fully equipped to offer this option.
Mr Fadli Fawzi also asked whether we could reach out to ethnic minority groups. Today, we already do so. Collaterals, such as those titled \"Guides to the Lasting Power of Attorney\", \"LPA quick reference guides\", for instance, are already made available in vernacular languages and there are also various LPA awareness workshops which are being conducted in vernacular languages.
Our collaboration with various community partners, including the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS), has thus far been positive and we will continue to work with them.
Dr Wan Rizal asked about cybersecurity standards that the prescribed systems will be subject to, as well as if there will be regular system testing or independent audits. The OPGO system used for online LPA applications is hosted on the Government commercial cloud, which has inbuilt cybersecurity measures. We would like to assure the Member that the system complies with the Government's cybersecurity and data protection standards, and there are also regular security audits, including penetration testing and vulnerability assessments.
Mr Fadli Fawzi asked about the anticipated take-up rate for remote witnessing. Based on earlier consultations, we anticipate that remote witnessing will be welcomed by members of the public who appreciate the greater convenience that it brings. To allow time for proper training and preparation, remote witnessing will start off with a smaller group of Certificate Issuers and donors before expanding to more Certificate Issuers. This gives us the chance to take in feedback from the users and further refine our processes and guidelines.
Sir, in conclusion, I echo Senior Minister of State Murali's comment that this Bill represents the Government's efforts to use technology to improve convenience and lives of Singaporeans.
Over the years, the Government has implemented several enhancements to the process of making LPA, and we hope that with the expansion of remote witnessing, more will come forward to make an LPA, and this will provide greater assurance of care arrangements to their family members and their loved ones.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Murali.
Mr Murali Pillai: Sir, I thank the hon Members for speaking and expressing support for the Bill and making very thoughtful suggestions too. Members have raised questions on three main areas in relation to the DCP and the proposed conveyancing-related amendments: first, ensuring effective user adoption of the DCP through training and engagement; second, the security and integrity of the digital system; and third, the safeguards available to ensure accountability and protection against fraud and scams.
Members have also raised various general clarifications such as the scope of the legislative amendments and the implementation approach for digital conveyancing. Let me now address these questions.
The hon Member Ms Hany Soh asked whether SLA has secured buy-in from stakeholders such as banks, law firms and real estate agents while the hon Members Mr Yip Hon Weng and Dr Wan Rizal asked about onboarding and training programmes to help law firms transition smoothly to the new system. The DCP was designed with extensive input from stakeholders. To date, SLA has conducted more than 40 engagements with a cumulative attendance of more than 600 participants from relevant stakeholders.
We recognise that stakeholders will need time to adapt to the new system. Training and support will be provided to practitioners to facilitate a smooth transition. For example, SLA is conducting industry briefings, training sessions and preparing user guides to help lawyers and conveyancing professionals navigate the DCP.
SLA will continue with their extensive engagement efforts to ensure a smooth transition.
Hon Members Mr Yip, Dr Wan Rizal and Ms Lee Hui Ying asked about the measures that will be taken to ensure that the DCP is inclusive, especially for residents who may struggle with digital tools. Mr Yip and Dr Wan Rizal suggested having assisted digital services and witnessing stations at community touchpoints and help channels for residents who require help on the use of DCP. Ms Lee also suggested that the DCP incorporate support for multiple languages and visual impairment. I thank Mr Yip, Dr Wan Rizal and Ms Lee for their valuable suggestions.
We will continue to work with all stakeholders in the design and implementation of the DCP to bridge the digital gap and ensure that the DCP is user-friendly to all users, including seniors. For instance, SLA had in fact considered visually impaired users and designed the DCP with mobile responsiveness and support for extra-large fonts. Lawyers will also continue to represent and assist buyers and sellers through the conveyancing process when the DCP is implemented.
Members have also raised the issue of DCP adoption and the cost of using the system. Hon Members Mr Vikram Nair and Ms Soh had asked whether the DCP is intended to eventually be the only platform for conveyancing, while Mr Nair suggested signalling to the market to encourage more people to transact electronically during the transition process. Ms Soh also suggested mandating transactions involving Government agencies, such as HDB, CPF Board to kickstart the adoption of the DCP. Mr Yip asked if fees will be charged for using the DCP.
While SLA is in discussion with the relevant agencies, there are no plans to mandate the use of the DCP at this juncture. As I explained in my speech earlier, the DCP is developed in phases, with a view to eventually covering all property transactions.
This measured approach will allow stakeholders to adapt to new digital conveyancing workflows progressively and enables SLA to incorporate practitioner feedback and refine workflows at each stage, resulting in a more robust and user-friendly system. SLA will also consider efforts to encourage the use of DCP.
There will also not be any additional fees or charges when the pilot is introduced. But this will have to be reviewed once the DCP is fully implemented as there will be a cost to providing the new service. When agencies review the fees that needs to be introduced in future, they will consider the benefits that the system brings to users as well as the overall affordability and accessibility of the system.
Mr Yip asked whether the electronic system would be able to ensure that individuals, like lawyers, who are required to attest to the validity or correctness of documents do, in fact, fulfil this duty. He also asked whether there are measures in place to ensure that all parties and stakeholders understand the gravity of the transactions.
To address this, the DCP has been designed to include clear warnings and confirmations at critical stages, requiring users to acknowledge the legal implications of their actions. SLA’s training programmes for legal professionals have also emphasised that electronic transactions carry the same legal weight and professional responsibilities as traditional processes.
Mr Yip, Dr Wan Rizal and Ms Soh asked about cybersecurity standards that the DCP is subject to and whether there are safeguards in place to prevent misuse, such as bulk scraping and phishing attempts. Dr Wan Rizal also asked whether there will be regular system testing or independent audits.
The DCP will operate on the Government Cloud Infrastructure and adopt security controls and processes in accordance with Government cybersecurity guidelines and best practices. Regular security audits and penetration testing will be conducted to maintain system resilience.
Mr Yip asked whether individuals can opt out of having personal data publicly accessible. There will be no personal data publicly accessible on the DCP. The DCP incorporates robust access controls to ensure information remains confidential and is only available to transaction parties, legal representatives and relevant authorities.
To Mr Yip’s question on what constitutes “non-confidential” data that can be provided for transparency and analytics, this refers to information that is publicly accessible, such as property addresses, purchase prices, and information in the Land Register, which can be found through public searches today.
The data will be used for better policy decisions and market analysis while ensuring that genuinely confidential information, such as personal financial details or private correspondence, remains protected.
To Mr Yip's question on what jurisdiction will be extended to the use of data in the portal without a resident's permission for criminal investigation, data in the DCP may be subject to existing legal frameworks that govern law enforcement access to information. Any use of portal data for criminal investigations would follow established legal procedures, including appropriate warrants or court orders where required.
Ms Lee asked whether the DCP might increase the risks of scams and whether there is a possibility of family members exerting undue influence over a senior to abuse the system. The DCP is designed with enhanced security features to reduce the risks of scams. For example, secure log in and secure electronic signing via Singpass or CorpPass will protect sensitive information and reduce the risk of fraud. In addition, lawyers must continue to ensure that their clients are not under undue influence from other persons when signing DCP documents using Singpass.
Mr Yip asked whether there are any manual fallback or contingency processes in the event the DCP faces downtime. The DCP is designed to ensure a high level of availability of services and includes mechanisms for data replication and failover to prevent data loss. In the unlikely event the DCP is unavailable, users may continue with their transactions using the current manual process. SLA will implement a business continuity management plan to enable online transactions to be completed offline quickly.
Mr Yip asked for assurance that digital conveyancing records will be archived indefinitely and remain accessible to homeowners or their legal representatives, even after technology platforms evolve or vendors change. The DCP will maintain all digital records and provide homeowners with access to download their documents. While this service is currently free, as I mentioned earlier in my speech, charges will have to be reviewed once the DCP is fully implemented as there will be a cost to providing this new service. Any such changes would be implemented with appropriate notice and clear guidelines about what constitutes chargeable versus free access.
Mr Nair raised the issue of mistakes in the electronic forms and suggested for the DCP to provide flexibility for such transactions to be upheld, similar to the current paper-based system. The DCP mirrors today's conveyancing process, particularly, during critical milestones in the transaction, such as the exercise of the Option. There should be thus similar flexibility under the DCP in the event of any mistakes in the form. The DCP is also linked to SLA's Singapore Titles Automated Registration System (STARS), which enables access to information in the Land Register.
Mr Yip asked whether it is possible to explore secure extensions, for example, through our embassies, consulates or accredited notaries, to allow Singaporeans who are temporarily based overseas to engage in remote witnessing. As not all jurisdictions currently have similar laws allowing for remote witnessing of the execution of documents, both signatories and witnesses have to be in Singapore, so as to maintain legal certainty and avoid potential conflicts with any foreign law requirement.
Ms Soh asked whether the new section 16W of the Bill will allow deeds relating to immovable property to be executed virtually and whether it extends to Powers of Attorney related to property matters. Ms Lee also spoke about reforming the law on deeds generally, including the abolishment of the deeds' regime.
Most common law jurisdictions still require a deed to be entered in many transactions and these must comply with the common law formalities for the execution of deeds. Similarly in Singapore, deeds apply in various aspects of our commercial activities. Other than real estate transactions, parties execute deeds in many contractual and non-contractual or legal arrangements. For example, an agreement, not for valuable consideration, is not enforceable unless in the form of a deed. Other examples include trust deeds, deeds of guarantees and deed polls.
The formalities required for the execution of a deed also raises the signature level of the documentation to the parties. Abolishing the use of the deeds may thus increase the incidence of fraud and affect how businesses deal with those from other countries on the common law system.
As far as we are aware, no common law country has abolished the use of the deed altogether, so while I appreciate that there is a need to update some aspects of the system, particularly from wet ink to electronic signatures and the usage of red seals, to abolish the deed system altogether, it is something which we will not take up at this stage.
The current amendments only enable deeds to be electronically executed on the DCP if they are required as part of the conveyancing journey. The Government is studying the feasibility of enacting legislative frameworks that will facilitate electronic executions of other instruments, including deeds.
Other than the benefits that will accrue to citizens, we are studying if and what safeguards are necessary to protect the integrity of the electronic execution process of each of these documents. I thank Ms Soh for her suggestions on partnering with institutions to build up a talent pool and merging the Singapore Academy of Laws escrow accounts into the DCP framework. SLA will study these suggestions. Sir, with that, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications for the Senior Minister of State? Mr Fadli Fawzi.
Mr Fadli Fawzi: I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for providing some clarity about the remote witnessing of LPAs. I understand that Certificate Issuers must keep records of donors making LPAs, and this must be furnished as needed in the event of a dispute. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary confirm whether the remote witnessing sessions must be recorded or does it only involve a written report?
Mr Eric Chua: I thank the Member for the clarification. OPG actually will provide the Certificate Issuers with a standardised template for LPA certification. As part of this template, Certificate Issuers must document how they have assessed that the donor understands the purpose of the instrument, as well as the scope of authority that is conferred under this instrument, and that no fraud or undue pressure was used to induce the donor to create this LPA.
As of now, there is no requirement for provision or submission of a video recording to the OPG, but we do want to mandate that the Certificate Issuer make a declaration in writing of the entire process, as well as the points I have mentioned earlier.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.
Ms Hany Soh: Thank you, Speaker. I have three clarifications to MSF. First, I must declare that I am a practising lawyer in family law, who volunteers in the Law Society's Probate Practice Committee.
The first question is pertaining to the Certificate Issuer playing a critical role, to ensure that the donor signs the LPA without duress and in this case, in a remote situation, I think on the point that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has just mentioned about expecting written documentations and making sure that this whole process has taken place in a secured way without any duress, can I enquire, because at this point in time, I believe that the attendance notes that any Certificate Issuers would take may vary across between lawyers and doctors, and for example, the judges may feel that there is a higher expectation, from lawyers' point of view, to exercise extra caution and diligence in ensuring that the documents are signed without duress. So, may I suggest that whether MSF can consider issuing a guidance note unifying the expectations of Certificate Issuers, be it from the doctors or the lawyers, to make sure that we are all on the same page, and ensuring that a consistent standard of quality and services are being rendered to ensure and minimise the risk of any disputes that arise subsequently?
The second and third clarifications are on how we can help to increase the take-up rate of LPA. I agree with the Senior Parliamentary Secretary and wish to commend the efforts that, over the years, community partners, for example, Pro Bono SG, the Community Development Councils have been rolling out in the community to organise law awareness talks, particularly targeting the minority groups as well, and we even have the Family Justice Courts rolling out community law awareness talks in the community as well over the years to increase such awareness.
But at the same time, I can recognise that a lot of seniors, they understand that it is important to do a LPA, but perhaps this topic still remains as a morbid one. And in terms of doing a comprehensive legacy planning or estate planning, they may think that perhaps they can prioritise in doing the nominations for CPF first, but try to delay on the doing of a LPA and doing of a will. I can understand that over the years the Government has rolled out many initiatives, for example, the Legacy Portal.
So, my suggestion is whether we can consider how we try and increase awareness or encouragements of the take-up rate of doing a comprehensive estate planning in this aspect, which means encouraging more to sign up through the Legacy Portals, how the legacy portal can help to —
Mr Speaker: Ms Soh, you might want to just get to your clarification and not make a speech.
Ms Hany Soh: Yes, sure. So, on that point itself, whether the legacy portal can be able to be enhanced further, to serve this purpose in terms of the take-up rate. And finally, also, in relations to the take-up rate, the registration fee for Form One is currently free and waived until 31 March 2026. In view that we are now rolling out this additional measure of remote certifications, whether we can consider to extend the waiver.
Mr Eric Chua: Sir, I thank the Member for her clarification. On Certificate Issuers, indeed, it is a critical role that they are playing. That is why we are phasing out the implementation. We are starting with a smaller group of Certificate Issuers, we are providing training, we are giving templates just to be sure that the standards of recording are consistent across the board.
With regards to the second question, I think this is a case where sometimes the heart and the brain go in different directions. I fully understand that, but I guess, other than just increasing or re-designing the Legacy Portal, perhaps what might be most important would be to speak to the hearts of the potential target audience, which many of them are our seniors in the community, and what would they be caring about. I think they will be caring about their family members, their loved ones, especially when they themselves lose mental capacity, and therefore, their family members and loved ones' peace of mind.
And I think that is the biggest \"sell\" whenever we reach out to seniors, senior citizens in the community. That is, to pitch to them, that whatever they do actually adds to the peace of mind of their loved ones, and I think that is the key point that I would want to push across.
On the third point, we are having a conversation with the Ministry of Finance and we will share more details when we have them.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Murali, do you want to chime in? No. Okay, alright. Any other clarifications for the two officeholders? 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: I heard what Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua said just now. My heart and my brain say the same thing. [Laughter.] Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.20 pm. Order. Order.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.00 pm until 3.20 pm.
Sitting resumed at 3.20 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Xie Yao Quan) in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"CareShield Life and Long-Term Care (Amendment) Bill ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health.
The Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Health, I move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Sir, let me begin with a fact that underscores the importance of today's Bill. One in two Singapore residents is expected to develop severe disability at some point in their lifetime.
CareShield Life, our national long-term care insurance scheme, was launched in 2020 to provide basic financial protection against long-term care costs. It is an integral part of our long-term care financing framework and sits alongside other layers of support that work together to help those with long-term care needs. These include: Government subsidies for nursing homes, as well as home-based and community-based care; grants such as the Home Caregiving Grant and Seniors' Mobility and Enabling Fund; MediSave withdrawals for long-term care; and safety nets such as ElderFund and MediFund.
As an insurance scheme, CareShield Life works on the basis of risk-pooling. This means that each birth cohort pays premiums that go towards meeting the claims of those from that cohort who might develop severe disability. This approach allows us to come together to support one another's future needs. It is also a more sustainable approach, as every cohort pays premiums that go towards supporting the long-term care needs of that cohort.
CareShield Life covers all Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents born in 1980 and later, from when they turn 30. This is regardless of pre-existing disabilities or health conditions. For those born in 1979 and earlier, we encourage them to enrol in CareShield Life, but kept participation optional when CareShield Life was first launched in 2020, as their circumstances and needs could vary widely and they may have already made their own plans. This is the group we term as the Optional Cohort.
Currently, new Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents born in 1979 and earlier are also covered under CareShield Life if they are not severely disabled when they become a Citizen or Permanent Resident. We term this group as \"New SCs/PRs\". Under CareShield Life, policyholders pay premiums from their age of entry until age 67, or for up to 10 years, whichever is longer. I would like to highlight that policyholders are covered for life, even after they stop paying premiums.
If policyholders are assessed to be of severe disability, or in other words, unable to perform at least three out of six Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), they will receive monthly cash payouts. These ADLs include washing, dressing, feeding, toileting, walking or moving around and transferring between bed and chair. Upon successful claims, if the individual had still been paying premiums, he or she will no longer need to do so. Policyholders receive cash payouts for as long as they remain in severe disability.
Sir, the CareShield Life Council undertook its first review of the scheme, five years after its implementation, to ensure that it continues to provide meaningful protection in a sustainable and affordable manner. The Council released its recommendations in August 2025, after extensive public engagement and careful deliberation, with its recommendations accepted in full by the Government.
Notably, the Council recommended doubling of the growth rate of CareShield Life payouts from 2% to 4% annually. The increased payouts will better cushion against rising long-term care costs driven by inflation of manpower and technology costs. With this enhancement, a policyholder making a claim in 2030 will receive $806 per month, compared to $731 per month under the previous annual growth rate. This is an increase of $900 annually.
For younger policyholders, the benefits are even more significant over time. Take, for example, a 30-year-old who joins CareShield Life in 2026. Should he or she make a claim at age 70, the payout will be $2,940 per month. This is more than double the payout of $1,406 per month under the current lower growth rate. The Council also recommended adjusting premiums to sustain the higher payouts. This will keep the scheme financially sustainable.
To help policyholders cope with the premium adjustments, the Government has also committed to providing over $570 million in additional support over the next five years. This will moderate annual premium increases from 2026 to 2030 to about $38 on average and no more than $75. Without this support, premiums in 2026 would have increased by approximately $126 on average, with a 4% per annum increase thereafter.
To keep premiums affordable and fair, the Council has also recommended adjusting CareShield Life's underwriting criteria, as planned earlier. I will explain this in greater detail later. These CareShield Life enhancements complement the long-term care subsidy and grant enhancements announced at Budget 2025, where we will be raising subsidies for long-term care services, to up to 80% for nursing homes and 95% for home and community care services. We are also expanding the eligibility criteria to cover seven in 10 households, so that more can benefit. We will increase Home Caregiving Grant cash payouts from a maximum of $400 to a higher maximum value of $600 and will expand the coverage of the Seniors' Mobility and Enabling Fund. These enhancements will be progressively implemented from January 2026.
To illustrate the impact, consider a CareShield Life policyholder with a per capita household income of $1,500. Together, the enhanced subsidies and grants will help to offset more than two-thirds of their community-based long-term care costs, with the enhanced CareShield Life payouts covering another quarter. After the financing support, the patient's individual out-of-pocket expenses will come down to $110 per month. The enhancements to CareShield Life, as well as Government subsidy and grant schemes will collectively provide Singaporeans with greater assurance that long-term care will remain affordable for years to come.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the CareShield Life and Long-Term Care Act was enacted in 2019 to support the establishment, governance and administration of CareShield Life. To implement the Council's recommendations I have just outlined, amendments to the Act are necessary. This Bill makes targeted amendments to two key areas.
First, we will reinstate the planned underwriting criterion for Optional Cohorts and new Singapore Citizens or Permanent Residents. This reinstatement was planned for right from when the scheme was first launched. This move will help moderate premiums for the older CareShield Life policyholders. Second, we will strengthen our premium recovery processes to ensure the scheme's sustainability and fairness to all policyholders.
Let me elaborate more on the first set of amendments, which relates to adjustments to the underwriting criterion. As I mentioned, CareShield Life is kept optional for those born in 1979 or earlier, the Optional Cohorts. This was a considered decision that recognised that many Singaporeans in these cohorts may have already made alternative arrangements for their long-term care needs before CareShield Life was introduced. They might also be enrolled in ElderShield, which was the earlier long-term care insurance scheme, later replaced by CareShield Life.
For the Optional Cohorts, they would also have had to pay higher annual premiums, as they would be enrolling at a later age and have fewer years to pay the premiums needed to support their lifetime benefits under the scheme. Nonetheless, the Government welcomed them to join if they wished to enrol, for greater assurance. We had outreach campaigns and offered participation incentives to encourage them to join. We also relaxed the underwriting criteria as a time-limited measure, so even those who already had mild to moderate disability, could enrol.
I want to emphasise that once insurance take-up is optional, underwriting is important. This is to guard against adverse selection where those who are more likely to claim will be more likely to enrol, driving up claims. Therefore, when the scheme was first conceptualised, it was designed such that only Optional Cohort individuals without any pre-existing disability could enrol in the scheme. However, the Ministry of Health (MOH) decided to grant a time-limited concession to keep the scheme inclusive at its launch. Under this concession, any Optional Cohort individual without severe disability, including those with milder forms of disability, could enrol in and benefit from the scheme. Participation incentives of up to $4,000 were also offered to offset premiums and to encourage enrolment.
With this approach, we have seen many from the Optional Cohort opting to join CareShield Life. As of June 2025, about 900,000, or almost half of them have done so. When CareShield Life was first launched in 2020, we announced that the concession period would be for two years. However, we allowed it to run for twice as long, or about four years, as we recognised that enrolment in CareShield Life might not have been top of mind for Singaporeans during the COVID-19 years that the initial concession was timed for.
Since then, sign-ups are now almost 90% lower than when the scheme was first launched for the Optional Cohorts in 2021 and have levelled off. This indicates that most Optional Cohort individuals who wanted to enrol have done so. Hence, the CareShield Life Council has recommended reinstating the planned underwriting criteria for the Optional Cohorts from 1 January 2026 onwards. This adjustment will benefit all Optional Cohort policyholders.
Remember I said earlier that risk-pooling is cohort-based. So, the risk is taken on and the cost is borne by those in their cohorts. With the earlier concession, premiums had to be set higher to account for the possibility that Optional Cohort individuals with mild to moderate disabilities might be more likely to join CareShield Life. Now that the underwriting criterion will be reinstated, this risk is reduced. This allows premiums to be moderated, keeping the scheme fair and sustainable for all policyholders. For instance, a CareShield Life policyholder from the Merdeka Generation born in 1952 would see annual premiums lower by more than $100 in 2026.
The Bill implements these changes through several key provisions. Clauses 2(a) and 8 introduce a new definition of \"not disabled\" in the Act, with the detailed meaning set out in a new Fourth Schedule. The Schedule defines \"not disabled\" as being able to perform all six ADLs without assistance. This provides the foundation for our reinstated underwriting criterion. Clause 6 provides the Minister with powers to amend this Fourth Schedule by order published in the Gazette. Any such order must be presented to Parliament after publication for proper oversight. Clause 3 amends the underwriting criterion or eligibility criteria for CareShield Life under section 6 of the CareShield Life and Long-Term Care Act 2019 which applies to New Singapore Citizens or Permanent Residents.
From 1 January 2026, these new Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents can only enrol in CareShield Life if they are \"not disabled\". This means that they have no pre-existing disability and are able to perform all six ADLs independently. We will be amending the relevant regulations so that this underwriting criterion of being \"not disabled\" will, likewise, apply to the Optional Cohorts. In implementing these changes, I want to assure Members that we remain committed to fairness, inclusivity and sustainability.
The Optional Cohorts have had sufficient time, four years, to join CareShield Life under the more inclusive underwriting criterion. The adjustment of underwriting criterion applies only to new Optional Cohort enrolment from 1 January 2026. Existing policyholders will see no change to their coverage. Importantly, those with pre-existing disability can continue to benefit from other Government financing schemes, such as long-term care subsidies and grants, including the Home Caregiving Grant.
Sir, I will now elaborate more about the second set of enhancements to provisions relating to the service of documents, which strengthen our premium recovery process. Like any other insurance scheme, CareShield Life relies on collective responsibility through risk-pooling within each cohort to provide policyholders with peace of mind in the event of severe disability. As part of this collective responsibility, all policyholders must play their part by meeting their premium obligations. This ensures that CareShield Life can continue to support potential claimants in a timely and sustainable manner. We also recognise that premiums must be kept affordable, especially for those who are vulnerable. This is why the Government provides support in the form of premium subsidies for lower- and middle-income households and has also announced transitional support to help policyholders manage the upcoming round of premium adjustments. Additional Premium Support is also available to fully offset the remainder of the premiums for those who remain unable to afford their premiums even after subsidies and have limited family support.
So, here, I want to emphasise that no one will lose CareShield Life coverage due to an inability to pay premiums, because from what I just said, those in the worst and most dire situations who cannot afford to even pay the premiums after our subsidies, the Government will step in and pay fully whatever is left for them to bear. So, this will be something we want to give assurance to all our Citizens and our residents here in Singapore. However, there are also some individuals who can afford to, but wilfully decide not to pay their premiums despite repeated reminders and eventually become defaulters. Owed premiums that cannot be recovered will affect CareShield Life Fund's financial sustainability and ultimately affect CareShield Life's ability to meet its claims. Consequently, such unrecovered premiums will have to be shouldered by other policyholders within their cohorts in the form of higher premiums.
Premium recovery and enforcement measures are, therefore, needed to ensure fairness for all policyholders. This involves the service of demand notes. To support these recovery efforts, clause 5 of the Bill introduces the new section 61A to scope the modes through which demand notes may be effectively served. Demand notes are formal notices served to defaulters stating their outstanding premiums and any interest imposed that is payable by the defaulter. These demand notes are a key enabler to our premium recovery process. Demand notes will be served before recovery measures can commence. Such recovery measures may include imposing interests or penalties, or appointing agents to recover outstanding premiums.
The current provisions enable demand notes to be served through various channels, including registered mail. However, we face operational challenges when policyholders fail to update their addresses or reside overseas. This often makes it difficult to reach them through traditional postal methods. Clause 5 will enhance our premium recovery efforts by allowing demand notes to be served via additional modalities, such as digital means, on top of existing methods, such as physical letters. Such an effort is in line with the overall move across the Government to complement, not replace, physical touchpoints with digital channels. These amendments will also align the approach with similar provisions already in place for MediShield Life and will improve operational efficiency and streamline premium recovery actions. Those with genuine difficulties affording their premiums will continue to be supported by premium support measures. I would like to reassure this House, again, that nobody will lose CareShield Life coverage due to an inability to pay their premiums.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the amendments we propose today will help to ensure that CareShield Life remains a robust and sustainable pillar of our long-term care financing system. Together with the substantial subsidy and grant enhancements announced at Budget 2025, these amendments and the changes to CareShield Life will continue to provide Singaporeans with the assurance they need as they age. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I seek to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Ng Chee Meng.
Mr Ng Chee Meng (Jalan Kayu): Mr Deputy Speaker, the enhancements to CareShield Life are timely as we approach a \"super-aged\" society in 2026. As the Minister mentioned, one in two residents is expected to develop severe disability in their lifetime. The caregiving needs will increase given smaller families shouldering the burden of caregiving and long-term care costs rising faster than general inflation.
In Jalan Kayu and beyond, I have met families struggling to balance between caregiving, work and the costs of care. Expenses for helpers and nursing homes can run into thousands per month. Even with subsidies, many middle-income households feel the strain. Caregivers often worry about how long they can keep going – physically, emotionally and financially. They want their loved ones to be given the best care in the best way possible. That is why I agree this Bill matters. We must ensure that CareShield Life gives real assurance to families when severe disabilities strike, that both the stricken person and their caregiver will have the support they need.
Today, I would like to touch on three areas: payout adequacy, premium affordability and, in conjunction with CareShield Life, refresh our \"Caregiver Compact\" so that caregivers themselves are supported even as they care for their loved ones.
First, on payout adequacy. We know that long-term care costs are rising faster than general inflation. The move to double the payout growth to 4% is welcome. But the key question remains: will payouts keep pace with actual costs of long-term care in the years ahead?
To help Singaporeans plan ahead with confidence, I suggest pegging payouts to cover at least a certain proportion of long-term care costs. In other words, make the payout percentages to the estimated long-term care costs clearer. This would give families a clearer, better picture of what CareShield Life will cover and, importantly as well, what it will not cover so that they can plan early for the rest of care needs through other sources or supplementary plans.
I also seek clarity on the stopping of payout growth after age 67 or once claims are made. While I understand the median disability duration is about four years, there are three in 10 Singaporeans that could remain severely disabled for 10 years or more. Without continued payout growth, CareShield Life can fall short just when families need it most, as inflation steadily chips away at the real value of the payouts.
I hope the Minister can share how the Government will ensure that payouts will remain meaningful and adequate during the extended years when the payout is needed. Because at its very heart, like what the Minister has mentioned, this is not just about the policy design, but assuring and giving ordinary Singaporeans peace of mind knowing that the premiums they have paid, faithfully, over the years will translate into real assurance when CareShield Life payouts are needed most.
My second point is on the affordability of premiums. I am heartened by the Senior Minister of State's repeated assurance that no one will lose coverage because they cannot afford their premiums. This assurance matters deeply and I am glad I heard the Minister say two, if not three times. But even so, for many middle-income families, including those in Jalan Kayu who may not qualify for means-tested support, the worry is still real and remains. The 4% annual premium increase, especially after transitional subsidies taper off by 2030, can add up and eat into MediSave balances.
To give families greater assurance, I suggest that premiums be capped at a fixed percentage of the median per capita household income. This ensures premiums remain fair and sustainable, in line with wage growth over longer periods of time. It would also help if the Government could indicate what is the expected upper limit of premiums beyond 2030, so that Singaporeans can plan their finances with greater certainty. Pegging payouts and managing premiums in tandem would give Singaporeans a stronger sense of predictability and stability, knowing both what they can expect in payout support on the one hand and what premiums contribution is needed on the other hand.
This clarity will go a long way in helping families plan responsibly without the anxiety of being overwhelmed when the care needs arise.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in conjunction with CareShield Life, we must also refresh our caregivers' compact. We must ensure that caregivers themselves are not left behind. There are many areas of support we can and must strengthen. Today, I want to focus on one – helping caregivers build up their own retirement adequacy.
Many of our caregivers, especially and often women, spend years caring for loved ones, especially those who become severely disabled. Many make the difficult decision to leave the workforce. As a result, they may have smaller CPF balances and savings. Later in life, they may well struggle to afford the long-term care they themselves need.
We must not let those who provided care in their younger years go without care in their own old age.
I urge the Government to consider providing CPF top-ups to primary caregivers who lack retirement savings due to caregiving. This would go some way in giving them assurance that even as they care for others, they, too, will be cared for in turn.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is timely to review the Caregiver Support Action Plan which was launched five years ago. I hope the Government can refresh the action plan to better recognise caregivers' sacrifices, strengthen the ecosystem around them and help them care for both their loved ones and, in time, for themselves. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Chinese please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The elderly around us have quietly dedicated themselves to bringing us up. Now that we have grown up, we should remember our roots and safeguard their twilight years.
The CareShield Life scheme is an important pillar of our nation's long-term care system. While strengthening this scheme, we must also ensure that it truly benefits those in need. We can approach this from three aspects: (a) that payouts can cover at least a certain percent of estimated long-term care costs – giving families predictability to plan for their needs; (b) that premiums will remain within reach, by capping premiums at a fixed percentage of the median per capita household income; and (c) that caregivers receive the support they need so that they will be cared for even as they care for their loved ones.
I urge the Government to consider providing CPF top-ups to primary caregivers who lack retirement savings due to caregiving. We have an obligation to care for them when they are in need and be their support.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, CareShield Life is a key pillar of our nation's approach to long-term care. It rests on the promise that when one pays premiums faithfully through the working years, one can count on meaningful support when severe disability arise.
As we strengthen the scheme, let us make sure it better delivers the assurance that: payouts can cover at least X percent of estimated long-term care costs, giving families predictability to plan for their needs; that premiums will remain within reach by capping premiums at a fixed percentage of the median per-capita household income; and that caregivers receive the support they need so that they will be cared for even as they care for their loved ones now.
Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding these suggestions, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mr Deputy Speaker, how we view and ultimately support the long-term care of the vulnerable in our society should be a reflection of what Singapore values. Care recipients are our parents, our partners, our neighbours and perhaps, even ourselves.
Every Singaporean hopes that when frailty comes, they can look to a system of support which includes not only from family and loved ones but from the society that we live in, through a national system that spreads the risk equitably, offers dignity and lightens the load on those who give care.
As a developed, wealthy country, the principle of shared responsibility through CareShield Life should rightly form one of the key pillars of our social safety net, providing financial support for Singaporeans faced with severe disability. This is why the Workers' Party (WP) has supported it conceptually since its inception in 2020.
As the scheme matures and as our society continues to age, we must ensure that it continues to embody the spirit of fairness and solidarity that should be a bedrock of a truly caring society. Where we can do more, we must do more.
CareShield Life marked a shift from its predecessor, ElderShield, by extending coverage to provide for lifetime monthly payouts from when an insured becomes severely disabled and becoming compulsory for younger cohorts.
Since CareShield Life was first debated in Parliament in 2018, we have seen significant increases in the cost of living off the back of global events like the pandemic, wars and geopolitical tensions. The increase from 2% to 4% of the annual growth rate of CareShield Life payouts is, thus, welcome as an acknowledgement that long-term care costs have outpaced inflation.
Even with payouts for the severely disabled, costs for long-term care are still significant, with 2024 numbers indicating that it can cost on average between $1,800 to $2,500 a month for home-based long-term care, depending on care intensity and subsidies, rising to an estimated average amount of $2,200 to $4,200 a month before subsidies for institutional-based care, such as in a nursing home. Given that long-term care costs have been outpacing general inflation since, the increase in payouts will be welcome by families.
However, could the Minister explain ongoing and future monitoring mechanisms and calculations for Singaporeans, as policyholders, to better understand what would be taken into consideration for the Government to once again assess whether the current payouts will be adequate?
After all, we can anticipate that any future increases in payout rates would also have consequent increases in premiums and, thus, a direct impact on Singaporeans as we continue to age. Thus, I would like to repeat the call made by the Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh in his speech when CareShield Life was introduced and debated in this House in 2018, where he asked the Government to reveal actuarial principles and to publish investment returns and premium adjustment factors regularly.
On premiums, I note that while premiums will go up to support the changes to the scheme, the Government has put in place various support measures. However, I wish to, today, again bring up the issue of gender-differentiated premiums because how we price care says something about how we value those who provide it.
This is not a new point and WP Members of Parliament (MPs) shared their concerns about this when CareShield Life was introduced in this House in 2018.
Women pay higher premiums, and this is still the case, with the reasoning that women live longer and claim more. Given that CareShield Life has been running for five years now and the Ministry would, presumably, now have some data about claimants under the plan, could the Minister share whether the assumptions that women would claim more and for longer have been borne out?
Even if the actuarial reasoning and data makes sense, actuarial fairness is not always the same as social fairness. Applying a strict actuarial lens when deciding to charge women more for enrolment in this compulsory plan does not take into account the following factors.
First, women in Singapore have lower lifetime earnings and smaller CPF balances on average. The Ministry of Manpower's 2023 Gender Pay Gap report found that women earn 14.3% less than men on a gross basis, with an adjusted gap of 6% still. CPF Board data also shows that women's balances at age 55 are approximately 55% lower than men's.
It is widely accepted that career decisions have a significant impact on the gender pay difference and that societal, cultural or even biological factors mean that women in Singapore continue to shoulder more caregiving work compared with men. It is often the default position that women are the ones who reduce their working hours, turn down promotions or increased responsibilities at work, or even leave the workforce altogether in order to care for a parent, spouse, child; sacrificing income, retirement adequacy and sometimes, even at the expense of their own health.
Add to this, that globally, women live longer but spend more years in ill health. Studies show they spend about 12% more of their lives in poor health than men. Closing this gender health gap could add over US$3 billion annually to Singapore's gross domestic product (GDP) by 2040.
So, when we ask this very same group, women, to pay more for CareShield Life, we risk deepening structural inequities. The caregiver who has spent years enabling others to work is in effect asked to bear a greater cost for the very care safety net her unpaid labour helps sustain.
This can also be compounded by findings in jurisdictions, like New South Wales in Australia, which noticed that while both women and men experienced disability at similar rates, women only made up 37% of claimants of its national disability insurance scheme. One of the more sobering findings was that because women shoulder more of the care work in the family, they end up with less time to manage their own disabilities and take on the administrative work associated with disability claims.
Could the Senior Minister of State clarify whether a similar picture exists in Singapore and if so, what is being done to address this additional challenge?
Just as importantly, by making women pay more, are we sending a signal that society does not provide for both men and women at the same rate?
Women could be perceived to be penalised financially for two things they cannot control: living longer and providing the majority of unpaid care. When a woman reduces work hours to care for an ageing parent or a disabled relative, she loses income, retirement savings and then pays higher premiums for this privilege of having provided that unpaid care. This is not risk pricing. It is compounding disadvantage.
In view of the above, I hope that we could consider the following: first, greater transparency; second, mandatory periodic review triggers of premium structures; third, explore how best we can close the gender gap.
On transparency, the Ministry should publish actuarial data regularly, including average claim duration, payout levels and fund solvency, as it currently does, to a certain extent, for MediShield Life. Publishing such data of what is, after all, a national insurance scheme will allow the public to be better understand the financial reasons as to why policy shifts occur when they do and to equip us, in this House, with a full picture as we strive to understand the trade-offs to be made within the policy.
Second, given that we are announcing the doubling of payout increases five years after the scheme started, I believe that it would help the public to understand at what point we would need to, again, review the adequacy of payouts, given changing costs of care.
Additionally, the longevity gap between men and women has narrowed over the last two decades from about six years, to around 4.4 years today. If this narrowing of life expectancy between men and women continues and if we were to succeed in our aims to close the gender health gap, it would be remiss not to ask whether there is still a place for gender-based pricing.
We, therefore, hope that the Government can commit to reviewing this policy when a specific threshold is crossed. This could take the form of a review of gender-based premiums that gets triggered when the differences in payouts narrow to a specific threshold on average over a few years. The exact threshold should be determined by actuarists with access to full data and the threshold should be published. And when that threshold is crossed, a mandatory review of the existing policy should take place.
Finally, we need to work towards greater equity in the form of exploring gender-neutral premiums. After all, MediShield Life already does so, and we should explore how CareShield Life can be structured to phase towards this approach once we have adequate claims experience available.
If we accept that CareShield Life is a national insurance rather than a commercial insurance product, given the constraints that women face, there is value in building equity into the design of the scheme rather than attempt to patch up any inequalities using subsidies or ad hoc support of cash offsets.
A baseline protection against disability should be universally accessible to all Singaporeans. And inherently, it does not sit right to penalise a group, that is, women, by making us pay more for what are often factors beyond our control. After all, globally, it has been found that women have a higher prevalence of disabling conditions, such as arthritis.
And to achieve our aims towards a Healthier SG, I hope, too, that we continue to work on various preventative and early intervention initiatives to address the various health challenges that women face, to do what we can to minimise women's time in ill health and address these concerns about a double or even triple whammy facing women as we age.
These suggestions are not about favouring one group over another; they are about ensuring that the principle of shared risk applies equally to everyone and to address any systemic issues at the root that may be causing the inequity. Our goal should not be to rebalance inequity with subsidies but to explore how we can remove inequity from the structure itself.
One of the changes in this Bill too is the reinstating of the underwriting criteria for those born before 1980, which means those with severe pre-existing disabilities would no longer be able to sign up for the scheme. Given this is a finite group who already currently live with severe disabilities, I would like to seek clarification on what support would be available to these individuals who may in the future be faced with an unexpected exigency, for example, in the form of suddenly losing coverage under their own plans, which were meant to cover their long-term care needs. In this case, would the Ministry be willing to consider any appeals on an exceptional basis to be included in the scheme after the reinstatement?
Finally, financial protection is only one part of the long-term care story. For many families, day-to-day realities and challenges of caring for loved ones means a constant juggling of the invisible mental load and unpaid work involved in caregiving, arranging for services, balancing work while simultaneously facing exhaustion and burnout. And for caregivers who take on much unpaid and unseen work, it bears reiterating what my colleague Aljunied group representation constituency (GRC) MP Gerald Giam said during this year’s Committee of Supply debate, that care recipients and carers have different needs and that our support system needs to reflect this.
A 2023 survey found that more than 40% of caregivers in Singapore are at risk of depression. The typical caregiver is a married woman between the ages of 45 and 60, simultaneously holding down full-time employment, spending an average of an extra 6.7 hours on caregiving a day. These details alone should cause alarm, and we must urgently build stronger, more holistic support, with solutions that better capture and respond to the time, skill and emotional resilience needed in their unpaid care work. This can take the form of accessible interventions targeted at realities rather than add to their workload, whether it is in form of mental health support or rallying better social connections within our communities.
Underscoring this, during the launch of our Caregivers’ Wishes initiatives last week, we heard many stories from Singaporean carers and recipients, with a common thread of caregivers needing not only more financial support, but more time, more skills and more understanding. Giving this support is not charity, it is an investment into our society’s care resilience.
To conclude, Mr Deputy Speaker, after our transition from ElderShield to CareShield Life, the next step is to ensure that CareShield Life remains true to its founding purpose: to stand beside every Singaporean in times of need. This means ensuring premiums grow transparently and remain affordable, gender-based differences are regularly reviewed as our care needs and demography changes, and caregivers are given training, respite and recognition beyond financial means.
A truly caring nation should not measure support in actuarial tables only, but in how we treat and support those who give and those who need care. Let us continue towards our goal of a system that reflects our shared values of fairness, inclusion and solidarity, so that every Singaporean, regardless of gender, income or circumstance, is able to live and age with dignity and support. I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Mariam Jaafar.
Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): Mr Deputy Speaker, imagine this. The last 10 years of your life. You cannot walk, you cannot dress yourself or feed yourself. Maybe you had a stroke or dementia. Your body fails you, slowly, while your savings drain away.
This is not a distant nightmare. MOH estimates that half of healthy Singaporeans aged 65 will develop severe disability in their lifetimes. This could happen to any of us or to someone we love. That is why long-term care is not a “someday” issue. It is a now issue.
When CareShield Life was lauched, it was a bold, necessary move, one that showed the foresight of this Government in planning for our ageing society. The Council’s recommendations and the Bill before us today takes the next step: enhancing payouts, adjusting premiums and tightening administration to keep pace with rising care needs and healthcare costs. I support it.
But let us not stop there. As we refine the mechanics, we must ask deeper questions. Is the system coherent? Is it fair? And it is ready for tomorrow?
I will speak today on five areas we must strengthen – system coherence, affordability and payout adequacy, inter-generational fairness, coverage, and long-term care delivery on the ground.
First, system coherence. Long-term care cannot exist in silos. Long-term care sits alongside Healthier SG, Age Well SG, S+3M framework, Home Caregiving Grant and other support schemes. There is an opportunity and a need to strengthen the linkages between these schemes.
Today, long-term care is a bit of a jigsaw puzzle with pieces from different boxes. Assessments and eligibility criteria differ. Funding is fragmented. And families, especially middle-income households, sometimes find community-based care harder to access or less supported. Incentives are sometimes misaligned.
Prevention matters. We encourage Singaporeans to get screened, exercise and join Healthier SG. But those who do the right thing do not seem to see any tangible benefits here – no premium discounts, rebates, not even Healthy365 points. Should prevention not count for something?
What we need is a continuum of care that connects prevention, early intervention and long-term care. This means standardising assessment, aligning payouts, subsidies and incentives, and making it easier for families to choose the right care, with structured pathways with less bureaucracy.
Encouragingly, steps have recently been announced. From 2026, the income threshold for nursing home subsidies, Home Caregiving Grant and the Seniors’ Mobility and Enabling Fund will all be aligned at $4,800 per capita household income, and the severe disability assessment for CareShield Life will also apply the Home Caregiving Grant. Families would not need to apply twice.
But we can go further. For example, offering premium rebates for active participation in Healthier SG programmes or automatically bundling CareShield Life payouts with Age Well SG community services. The CareShield Life Council, Healthier SG Office and Age Well SG agencies can be tasked to jointly look at how prevention and community care trends impact financing. This kind of system coherence aligns incentives across a person’s life course, so that we bend the cost curve, not just chase it.
Let me turn to affordability and payout adequacy. With this Bill, premiums will rise, even with means tested premium subsidies, transitional support and additional premium support, the annual premium increase will be $38 on average but can go up to $75 during the transitional period. Without support, the average increase would be $126 annually. For lower- to middle-income families supporting multiple dependants and those with lower MediSave balances, such as retirees and the self-employed, this can be a strain. A middle-income household with a per capita income of just over $3,600 but below $4,800 today gets no CareShield Life premium subsidy, even though they will later qualify for long-term care subsidies if disability strikes. This may make sense within individual schemes, but to families on the ground, it feels inconsistent and the “sandwiched middle” shoulders a heavier burden upfront.
Will the Ministry consider increasing the subsidy income threshold so that greater alignment between financing and service subsidies exist across premium support, care subsidies and Healthier SG and Age Well SG programmes? A coherent, transparent framework will help families plan better and strengthen trust in the system.
For those with very low MediSave balances, the Additional Premium Support scheme is critical. Can the Senior Minister of State share how much Additional Premium Support has been disbursed so far and what is budgeted for the next five years? Will the Minister consider expanding Additional Premium Support to ensure no one loses CareShield coverage due to affordability? And I am heartened to hear the Senior Minister of State speak and reiterate that many times in his speech.
On payouts, 4% annual payout increases may not keep pace with actual long-term care cost inflation. And since the payout is also fixed at the point of claim or at age 67, their value may erode over time. Will the Ministry consider regular affordability reviews to monitor premiums, subsidies, payouts and inflation, and recalibrate quickly as needed?
As we debate premiums and payouts, we must also look at inter-generational fairness. Younger Singaporeans are paying into CareShield Life, putting trust in a promise: that the system will protect them when they need it most. And let us not forget that some will never make a claim. Still, they contribute to make the system work for all. Yet disability rates and care costs could rise faster than current actuarial assumptions. Will the Majulah Generation and younger Singaporeans be looking at substantial premium increases over their lifetimes? Will coverage still be sufficient when their time comes?
To preserve trust, can the Ministry commit to monitoring actuarial assumptions closely and adjusting premiums gradually and with transparency, integrating prevention with long-term care financing models? Could we explore risk-sharing models that protect vulnerable groups without overburdening the rest?
There is a group we must not forget – seniors who are now excluded with the reinstatement of the underwriting criteria. Seniors who were too old, had pre-existing disabilities, even mild ones, or were not yet Singapore Citizens or Permanent Residents at the time.
People like my Woodlands resident, Mdm T, who told me quietly, “I’m not afraid of dying, I’m afraid of being a burden to my children.” She is not alone. Seniors who are excluded from MediShield Life, may have to rely on family or minimal social assistance. Yet these are the very people most likely to need long-term care soon. Schemes, like the Interim Disability Assistance Programme for Elderly (IDAPE), help but only partially. This underwriting gap is a coverage gap and a fairness gap.
Will the Ministry consider expanding and extending IDAPE or similar fallback schemes? Or creating targeted risk pools or options for partial entry for excluded seniors, even if it means smaller payouts rather than this all-or-nothing coverage? No senior should be left unprotected simply because they were born too early or became disabled too soon.
Finally, design matters, but delivery matters more. Even the best financing design means little if services on the ground are stretched and wait times are long, whether it is for a nursing home bed, home personal care or caregiver services, including respite care. In Woodlands, new facilities like Ren Ci at Woodlands Health Campus have added beds and day places. But waiting times for some services still run weeks and longer for specialised care. Nationally, the median wait time for a nursing home space is four to six weeks, and longer for dementia care. When my Woodlands resident had to look for a nursing home for his brother, he had to put him in a nursing home in Jurong for the fastest enrolment, which means higher travel time and cost for the family. Families should not have to choose between speed and proximity when it comes to long-term care.
Sir, payouts must translate into real, timely, accessible services, and not just paper entitlements.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill is timely and a significant step is ensuring the CareShield Life remains affordable, provides sufficient payouts and is sustainable. But our work is not done. To serve our ageing society well, we must build greater system coherence, keep the system affordable and payouts adequate, ensure fairness across generations, plug the coverage gaps for seniors and make sure the care we promise actually gets delivered where and when it is needed.
Let us build a long-term care system that does not just protects today’s seniors, but keeps faith with today’s young and stands strong for generations yet to come. Because how we care for the most vulnerable around us is a true test of the “we first” society that we are building together. I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Sir, the proposed amendments to the CareShield Life and Long-Term Care Act seeks to introduce amendments that redefine the circumstances under which the scheme applies to certain individuals and to provide for the service of documents related to the Act.
I support the Bill but will share some remarks on the first element, dealing with the scope of coverage of CareShield Life. I will begin with elements close to the specificities of this present Bill, before moving on to more general issues of coverage.
Clause 3 amends section 6(1)(b) to automatically enroll new Citizens or Permanent Residents born before 1980, or who those who became Citizens or Permanent Residents after October 2020, so long as the individual was not already severely disabled. This would, effectively, compel enrollment for those aged 45 and older into the scheme, if they happened to have recently altered their immigration status. In contrast, long-time Citizens and residents remain grandfathered on the older, albeit discontinued ElderShield scheme.
This effectively creates a disparity between older new Citizens and residents, and existing ones, if the latter had not opted into CareShield Life. Does the Ministry have any concerns over whether this disparate treatment might become an issue in the future? If so, would it not be better to compel all to move over to the new scheme?
Relatedly, these amendments, along with those to section 6(4)(b), exclude those who are severely disabled from the scheme, unless approved by the Minister. I understand the economic rationale for such exclusions: we do not wish to create a case of adverse selection, where those enrolled in the scheme are all already disabled, thereby rendering the risk-sharing aspect moot. Still, it remains a moral responsibility for society to take care of those that are already disabled.
I understand that the Government does have in place a multi-pronged approach for supporting such individuals. This includes taxpayer-funded, means-tested subsidies and grants, other supplementary insurance schemes, access to self-funded healthcare savings and a last-ditch safety net. Still, I would appreciate a comparison of how those without CareShield Life coverage would fare, relative to those who would, otherwise, be reliant on piecing together these disparate sources of financial support.
Moreover, it is unclear how the Minister will exercise the discretion afforded to him. Are there specific conditions which would lead an individual to be approved or excluded?
Clauses 7 and 8 formalise the six ADLs, for which an individual must require either maximal or total assistance in three, before they are considered severely disabled and, thereby, qualify for CareShield Life payouts.
I will start by noting the slight difference in the six categories defined by MOH, relative to other standards out there. In particular, our basic ADLs include a separate mobility function which, I believe, is a significantly higher bar than simply transferring. It also strikes me as a greater hurdle than either hygiene and grooming, or continence, which are used by the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health or the Katz Index, respectively.
Perhaps more important is that these six ADLs remain an incomplete representation of an individual's ability to function adequately in a modern community. They mainly describe aspects of physiological self-care but exclude important ancillary aspects of psychological or social behavior that are nevertheless necessary for independent living. These are otherwise known as instrumental ADLs.
While I accept that it is not possible to cover every possible aspect of effective functioning, I believe that it is, nevertheless, important to recognise that such instrumental ADLs can be materially impacted after a critical illness, which is precisely the sort of circumstances where one would hope insurance protection kicks in.
Moreover, dignified living in modern Singapore virtually requires that individuals be able to perform certain instrumental ADL tasks, such as preparing or purchasing meals, handling money and using transportation. The lack of mention of these activities in the evaluation criteria for disability coverage under CareShield Life is even starker, when such metrics are already being accounted for by certain local medical support organisations, such as Dementia Singapore and the College of Family Physicians. It is also a notably bipartisan concern, having been raised in the previous term of Parliament by Members from both sides of the House.
Admittedly, including all instrumental ADLs in coverage will likely mean a larger risk pool, which could, in turn, materially raise premium. This is an empirical question. But even if we do not go the full extent of including all on the list, which typically includes up to eight distinct tasks, activities, such as communication, transportation and medical management, appear to be functions that are much more necessary for living in a modern city state, such as Singapore.
A related concern is whether the need for maximal or total assistance in three activities is more reflective or indicative of severe disability than, say, moderate assistance but in five distinct activities? Indeed, using an index approach, it is possible to construct outcomes where those who qualify for CareShield Life as severely disabled might even score higher on an index of daily functioning than someone else who would have scored lower. If we take the notion of disability assessment seriously, we should, perhaps, move away from the current binary outcome, like the inability to perform at least three ADLs, toward a more clinically corroborated approach that relies much more on index scoring. The use of indexes is relatively widespread in jurisdictions, including Australia, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Let me move on to more general issues about CareShield Life, which were flagged in the 2025 Review Council Report, but not yet directly addressed in the present Bill. These have, directly or indirectly, been informed by my interactions with residents in Sengkang that have faced difficulties associated with the current operation of the scheme.
The first concern is related to the optional enrollment process for those born 1979 and earlier. One issue is whether the 60-day \"free-look\" period may be too brief for those who enroll to decide on whether they wish to remain on the scheme permanently. Relatedly, some appear not to have fully understood what they are truly getting themselves into, in terms of their ongoing premium payments.
While I understand that underwriting principles require that participants be ultimately locked in, I wonder if the free-look period may be extended to a longer duration, such as three months. Similarly, would it be possible for enrollees to opt out within, say, a year, perhaps with some penalty. After all, while optional exits would undeniably mess with actuarial calculations, opting out tends to be far less distortionary for the long-run financial viability of the fund, compared to unrestricted opt-ins.
Second, the Government has assured the public that they will ensure that no one will lose coverage due to an inability to pay their premiums. This is something that the Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon had reiterated earlier on several times. This is important, not least because cost of living pressures, while abating over the past year, remain a major concern for many Singaporeans, and the last thing we would like to do is to saddle our workers with yet another cost increase, at a time when they are also simultaneously concerned about job security.
Will the Ministry clarify what proportion of current participants receive premium support, and what the process of accessing additional premium support entails? In particular, would this support kick in, in the event that they lose their job, so that they do not also risk losing their insurance coverage at the same time?
Third, I would like to know whether, in practice, CareShield Life will be directly run by the CPF Board under the direction of the Ministry of Health, or if it will be outsourced to a third-party private insurer, such as Income Insurance, to administer.
I ask this because, to my knowledge, other insurance programmes run by the CPF Board, such as the Dependents' Protection Scheme (DPS) or the Home Protection Scheme (HPS), appear to be administered by companies such as Great Eastern and Income Insurance.
I have encountered instances where residents expressed dismay about how they were caught unaware that there were lapses in their coverage of either DPS or HPS, due to insufficient funds remaining in their CPF Ordinary Accounts (OA). This was already discussed this morning by Minister Tan See Leng. That said, while it is possible that some may be surreptitiously trying to reinstate their insurance plan ex post facto, to make a claim after an untoward event.
There is, in fact, another plausible reason: because premiums had previously been automatically deducted from their CPF OAs, they did not meticulously track the need to routinely make payments. They were, thus, unaware when, due to inadequate OA balances, that their coverage had lapsed. Moreover, because they were expecting a contractual relationship with the Government and not a private entity, they then proceeded to overlook reminder mailings sent by these companies.
For this reason, I believe that it would be useful to ensure that, should CareShield Life ultimately be outsourced to a private insurer for administration, that correspondence pertaining to the scheme still come directly from CPF Board or, at the very least, feature a CPF Board logo prominently in the letterhead. This will ensure that policyholders treat such correspondence seriously.
At the same time, CPF must assure the public that, despite being managed by a non-Governmental entity, claims will continue to be evaluated not just with an eye toward prudence but also compassion and common sense. This will ensure that the hard-won trust of Singaporeans in the institutions of Government is not inadvertently squandered by private corporations that are chasing a bottom line.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the recent ruling by the district Courts against Income Insurance over its \"wholly unreasonable\" conduct in denying insurance claims by 78-year-old Ko Wah for accident-related damages is a reminder that our pronouncements of a \"we first\" society must, ultimately, be backed by concrete action that is consistent with that aspiration.
This is, hopefully, an isolated case. Still, we must understand that the promises of CareShield Life to help the most vulnerable in our society to continue living a life of dignity after a devastating accident will only go so far as this is truly realised in practice. If support is too meager, too perfunctory or too grudgingly provided, then this promise will ultimately ring hollow.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Alex Yam.
Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the CareShield Life and Long-Term Care (Amendment) Bill.
This Bill continues the Government's careful and compassionate work to strengthen our national framework of long-term care, ensuring that no Singaporean faces the challenges of severe disability or extended care needs alone. It reaffirms our social compact, that as we build a more inclusive \"we first\" society, we also build systems that allow Singaporeans to age with dignity, security and peace of mind.
For me, this Bill does two things.
Firstly, it redefines the circumstances under which the CareShield Life Scheme applies by introducing a clear definition of \"not disabled\" in a new Fourth Schedule and by clarifying automatic coverage rules for individuals becoming Citizens or Permanent Residents after the scheme’s commencement. Secondly, it modernises the service of documents provisions, including a new section 61A that allows notices, such as demand notes, to be served through multiple channels, including email and approved digital platforms.
This of course reflects the way that Singaporeans increasingly communicate, ensuring that administrative processes keep pace with technological advancements.
These legislative enhancements coincide with significant policy shifts as well.
In August 2025, the Government accepted the CareShield Life Council’s recommendations for the 2025 Review. These include higher payouts to meet long-term care needs and a $575 million in additional premium subsidies to cushion the increase for households. These changes ensure that CareShield Life remains financially sustainable while protecting Singaporeans who develop severe disabilities from being left behind. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, this amendment reflects that the Government's care for the elderly and persons with disabilities, and demonstrates our society's sense of responsibility and foresight when facing the challenges of an ageing population.
As society rapidly ages, more and more families will face the pressure of long-term care. Whether due to age-related disability, or mobility difficulties caused by illness or accidents, long-term care is no longer \"someone else's problem\", but rather \"a common issue for all of us\".
This amendment makes the definition of \"disability\" clearer and more consistent, whilst also ensuring that document servicing channels are more convenient and effective. Although these amendments appear to be technical, they concern whether families can receive timely assistance and protection in their caregiving journey.
I also hope that when the Government implements electronic servicing, it can consider the actual circumstances of elderly people and vulnerable groups, avoiding situations where they miss important information due to the digital divide. We can combine physical letters with social media to ensure no information is missed. Most importantly, we must continue to make \"dignified ageing\" our goal, establishing a reliable and compassionate long-term care system that allows every citizen to face the future with peace of mind.
(In English): While I support the Bill, I would like to raise a few clarifying questions and suggestions to strengthen its implementation.
Firstly, on assessment criteria and appeals. On the new \"not disabled\" definition: some individuals have progressive or cognitive disabilities that do not neatly fit into the six ADLs. How will these cases be fairly assessed? Will MOH issue updated clinical guidance and ensure that our assessors receive the adequate training to apply the criteria consistently? Appeals processes should also be transparent and timely. Clearer public guidelines with case examples and possibly tele-assessments for bedridden patients will reduce stress for families.
Secondly, on digital service and inclusion. The shift to digital service is practical, but many affected groups are seniors with limited digital literacy. How will MOH ensure that they are not disadvantaged by missed notices? A \"phygital\" model should be the default for critical documents, such as demand notes. Community partners, such as the Silver Generation Office, the Infocomm Media Development Authority, media literacy ambassadors and the Community Development Councils (CDCs) can support vulnerable groups in managing their digital interactions.
Thirdly, financial sustainability. The additional subsidies is commendable, but as payouts rise and our population ages, how stable will premiums remain over the longer term? Regular public actuarial reports, similar to CPF's, can build trust. MOH could also consider more progressive subsidies for middle-income families who may not qualify for help but still shoulder heavy caregiving burdens.
CareShield Life also operates in conjunction with many other schemes such as the Home Caregiving Grant and Medisave withdrawals for long-term care. How will MOH ensure that families experience these as a coherent ecosystem, rather than fragmented programmes? A one-stop care portal perhaps, that integrates financial, medical and social services could be a meaningful difference for families navigating sudden disability events.
On monitoring and review, what are the mechanisms that will be available to monitor the impact of these changes over the next few years? Regular publication of disability assessment data, appeals statistics and processing times will also strengthen transparency. Ultimately, social and health initiatives often compete for limited fiscal space and must demonstrate measurable outcomes within short cycles. Yet, long-term care, by its very nature, requires patient sustained investment in our caregivers, in community infrastructure, and preventative programmes. We must continue to find ways to bridge support gaps through deeper partnership, flexible funding models and a mindset that sees care not as a cost but as a shared responsibility and a social investment in our collective future.
CareShield Life is also ultimately very important as part of our care framework. But by its very nature, it is abstract and its technical design makes it difficult for many to understand. Compared to ordinary health insurance, disability-type insurance is less intuitive to many people. It is hard to internalise eligibility criteria, payout triggers, limitations on how premiums evolve. And therefore, this requires much more public education. And I do urge the Ministry to continually inform and educate our public on the importance of CareShield Life and how it operates.
By 2030, one in four Singaporeans will be aged 65 or above. The CareShield Life Scheme is a key pillar of our response to this demographic transformation. This Bill is not merely about technical amendments, but it is about how families experience vulnerability, care and experience dignity.
I therefore support this Bill and I believe the suggestions that I raised today can make a good Bill even better.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the CareShield Life and Long-Term Care (Amendment) Bill. The proposed enhancements reinforce Singapore’s commitment to inclusive and future-ready care. It clarifies who qualifies for coverage and strengthens how the scheme is administered and communicated. These refinements lay the groundwork for enhanced benefits for CareShield Life from 2026, including higher monthly payouts and moderated premium increases, ensuring that long-term care for severe disabilities remains accessible and fair.
CareShield Life offers lifetime monthly payouts for those who are severely disabled. This goes some ways to help families manage the emotional and financial weight of caregiving. The Scheme is based on our ethos of shared responsibility – where individuals, families and the Government co-contribute to care financing. The proposed amendments clarify the eligibility criteria of CareShield Life for the Optional Group – those born in 1979 or before, or aged 46 and above in 2025. The intent is to ensure fair and consistent eligibility and claims for the cohort while balancing inclusivity with scheme sustainability.
These proposed enhancements are welcomed moves. But as we refine CareShield Life, we must also examine the lived realities of those navigating it. So, while I support the proposed amendments, there are a few points I would like to speak on: one, the underwriting criterion for the Optional Group and the implications for them; two, the affordability of premiums for retirees without subsidy support
Given the importance of coverage for severe disability and to encourage more in the Optional Group to sign-up for CareShield Life, currently those with milder forms of disability can sign up for CareShield Life. And as the Senior Minister of State has shared, this was a very deliberate decision to allow for some limited time for people to sign up. The Bill proposes the reinstatement of the underwriting criterion for the Optional Group to moderate premium for older policy holders. With the proposed amendment, eligibility now is tied to their disability status. This means that they can only enrol in CareShield Life if they do not have any pre-existing disability as defined in clause 8 of the Bill and the new Fourth Schedule. The definition states that a person is “not disabled” if he or she is able to do all of the ADLs. This intent is to prevent adverse selection risk, where those who are more likely to claim, opt in for CareShield Life.
I do agree with the rationale for this stricter definition as it provides clarity of eligibility as it also prevents adverse selection risk. This will keep the scheme fair and more importantly, more sustainable. It does however mean that those in the Optional Cohort with mild disability, who would have qualified under the current time-limited requirements of mild disabilities will now not be able to be covered. And as the Senior Minister of State has shared, this is concerning because one in two individuals in their lifetime will encounter severe disability. These individuals may need the coverage as they age.
Since the launch of CareShield Life, as the Senior Minister of State has shared, 1.9 million Singapore Residents have joined the scheme with 900,000 of them, or half of that population of the Optional Cohort opting in. That being the case, we still have 900,000 not covered, and some of them may not have opted in due to perhaps not fully understanding the scheme and therefore not having the coverage. I know that there has already been time given, but I do suggest and I do think that we must do more to help them navigate the full sweep and to understand the caregiving support. I am not suggesting that we force this group to sign up, but what I think we have to do is ensure that people understand the full sweep of the Government schemes available so that they can make more informed decisions and more confident decisions for their long-term care financing.
I know that the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) today, as well as the Silver Generation Office play a central role in providing resources and helpline to reach out and help families understand care options, eligibility and application processes.
I think more of us in the community need to understand these care options better and to help seniors with low digital literacy and also their caregivers understand the suite of long-term care financing support schemes available. Why does this matter? It matters because it helps bridge the last mile of families who lack coverage and who may not proactively seek help as they may be unaware or just too overwhelmed with their caregiving needs.
I would like to speak about affordability of premiums. The affordability of CareShield Life premiums is tightly coupled with the Bill which lays the ground work for the enhancements proposed by the CareShield Life Council, which the Government has accepted fully. And this includes the recommendation for higher payouts and correspondingly higher premiums to keep the scheme sustainable.
There is concern about affordability of long-term care for those who do not qualify for subsidy support, particularly retirees. These are often individuals who own modest assets but have limited cash flow. They fall just outside the means-tested thresholds, are caregivers for spouses or ageing parents while managing their own health. Several of my residents in Changi Simei do fall under this category. And the temporary transitional support for CareShield Life which is not means-tested is definitely welcome as it applies to all policy holders and it will moderate the premium increase to $38 per year on average and capped at $75 per year on average and can be fully paid by MediSave.
The amount of increase may be small, but the retirees who are cash stretched that are not eligible for subsidy support for premiums, the increases may risk them opting out of the scheme even though they may be eligible and are vulnerable.
I have called for long-term care policies and support to remain inclusive and responsive to our rapidly ageing population as long-term care is not a one-off but it is an ongoing expense, including premiums. So, based on the current means-testing criteria, if a household has no household income, the annual value (AV) of the home is used as the criterion. Given the higher property valuation in recent years, this impacts those living in modest private property with no income and who wish to age in place. The means testing criterion of AV of property applies not just to CareShield Life but to other long-term care schemes. Hence, those who fall in this category are not just impacted by higher premium for CareShield Life but eligibility for support of other long-term care schemes including MediSave Care, Home Caregiving Grant and the Elder Fund.
I know that the Senior Minister of State did give multiple reassurances that no one will be denied of CareShield Life coverage if they cannot afford the scheme, but this goes beyond just CareShield Life. The principles of supporting our caregivers and their families goes beyond just the CareShield Life premium. So, I do encourage that we continue to review and refine the criterion as we go.
We encourage families to be the main caregivers for their family members. In my engagement with our residents, it is heartening to see many families care of their elderly parents, siblings or relatives with disabilities and they live together. If they are living in a private property, AV is used for means testing and they are not eligible for the subsidy support for long-term care if they live in a private property, which generally, in my ward, falls beyond the current threshold.
Can MOH consider refinement with the use of AV? Would MOH consider, for example, tiering the AV threshold by age, adjusting the AV cut-off for older cohorts who own only one property? In using AV as a criterion, can the number of those requiring caregiving and living in the household be a factor for assessment? This will support the sandwiched generation.
Refining AV as a criterion for means testing for long-term care support is vital for our policies to keep pace with the evolving demographics and caregiving realities as Singapore's population ages. This will still preserve our ethos of shared responsibility, where individuals, families and the Government co-contribute to care financing.
Mr Deputy Speaker, CareShield Life is an important component of Singapore's long-term care system, offering lifelong monthly payouts to support individuals who become severely disabled. It provides financial assurance at a time when care needs are high and income may be low, helping families manage the costs of home care, nursing services or caregiver support.
Yet, we must ensure that Singaporeans understand that CareShield Life does not stand alone. It is complemented by a suite of targeted schemes like MediSave Care, which allows monthly withdrawals for care expenses; the Home Caregiving Grant, which offsets informal caregiving costs; and the ElderFund, which provides discretionary support for those with limited income and family help. Together, these schemes form a layered safety net that ensures affordability, dignity and inclusion across diverse care settings and life stages.
I support the amendment as it ensures affordability and sustainability of CareShield Life while balancing inclusivity of the scheme.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Punggol): Mr Deputy Speaker, I declare that I am the Director for the National Trades Union Congress' (NTUC's) Women and Family Unit and Secretariat to the NTUC's Women's Committee.
I thank the Government for the CareShield Life review. These enhancements strengthen our long-term care system and give Singaporeans assurance that as our population ages, our system will remain robust, sustainable and responsive to evolving care needs such as the increased popularity of home caregiving services.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
Mr Speaker, caregiving is an essential part of our social fabric. Behind every effective care policy lies a network of individuals, many of them women, who take on the responsibility of caring for their loved ones. They do so out of love and duty, often balancing employment, family commitments and financial pressures.
Their contributions may not always be visible, but they are fundamental to the well-being of our households and communities.
Allow me to share the story of Ms T, a young graduate in her late 20s. For the past six years, she has been the main caregiver to her grandmother, who lives with dementia. When she left the workforce to take on this role, she gave up her income, her CPF contributions and opportunities for career progression.
Her story reflects the reality for many informal caregivers – that caregiving comes with long-term financial implications. These are not only emotional sacrifices, but also economic tradeoffs that affect retirement adequacy and financial security later in life.
Beyond the financial impact, caregiving can also be administratively demanding. Indeed, I have written several Meet-the-People Session appeals quite recently to help our Punggol residents navigate this.
Indeed, caregivers like Ms T often find themselves navigating a complex landscape, applying for grants, coordinating across agencies and managing multiple appointments. She shared that to apply for a home caregiving grant, she had to obtain payslips from both immediate and extended family members for means testing.
Mr Speaker, while our schemes are well-intentioned, such processes can be very overwhelming. I therefore urge our Government agencies to continue efforts to streamline caregiving-related schemes, simplifying claims, reducing duplication and easing coordination. Caregivers should be able to focus on what truly matters – caring for their loved ones.
I note too that Senior Minister of State Koh has shared that more payouts would be given to home and community care. I welcome this development, given that ageing in place is much preferred by our Singaporean families. However, given that home caregiving services by a professional nurse can go up to $280 per shift, I call on the Government to consider, in time, higher payouts to families choosing homecare options.
Mr Speaker, we must also recognise that women may face higher health and long-term care insurance premiums compared to men. When combined with the gender pay gap, this creates the impression of a double disadvantage – women earn less, yet pay more for protection.
I recognise there is a danger in over-simplifying insurance premiums along gender lines as there are differences in women's health needs. We live longer and there are very real illnesses that only women are afflicted with. Our women's health needs to be comprehensively covered by our paid insurance for payouts and coverage, and not to be generalised into a one-size-fits-all coverage plan.
While I recognise that premiums will need to make actuarial sense, I urge the continued monitoring of women's affordability under CareShield Life to ensure no woman is left behind simply because premiums and care costs outpace her ability to pay. To this, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his assurance that no one will be left without insurance coverage because of premiums and urge that we continue with the many layers of protection we currently have to support those who find premiums a burden.
Mr Speaker, caregiving, whether formal or informal, holds real economic value. We must consider ways to ensure that caregiving is appreciated, recognised and rewarded by all in our society. We must look to ways to enhance and promote CPF or CareShield Life top-ups for informal caregivers through family contributions, Government co-funding and contributions from civic society and employers.
I thank the Government for enhancing the Matched Retirement Savings Scheme and I also call for its expansion to include informal caregivers below the age of 55 to help build their nest eggs early. No doubt Ms T would be very grateful for this. Such measures would recognise both the social importance and economic contribution of caregiving while helping caregivers build long-term retirement adequacy.
Mr Speaker, a strong care ecosystem also requires supportive workplaces. Employers play a vital role in enabling caregivers to remain economically active. Tripartite standards such as work-life harmony, flexible work arrangements and even paid caregiver leave can make a meaningful difference and an impact to employees managing care responsibilities.
At NTUC Women and Family, we continue to work with progressive employers to foster fair and supportive workplaces for women and caregivers. We also encourage companies to open return-to-work pathways through flexible training, job redesign and re-employment opportunities so that caregiving does not permanently close doors to career development and livelihoods.
As we strengthen CareShield Life, we must also remember those who form the backbone of our care economy – our nurses, community care professionals and, of course, our migrant domestic workers. Their work is demanding, both physically and emotionally. Amidst rising care costs, it is critical that our care workers are treated with dignity, paid fairly and given adequate rest. Through tripartite collaboration, we must ensure that productivity gains in the care sector translate into both better wages for our workers and affordable services for our families.
Caregiving is essential work – in our homes and across our healthcare system. I welcome the enhancements to CareShield Life, including escalating payouts, higher subsidies and a simpler claims process. But beyond these improvements, let us continue to monitor care costs closely, support caregivers in balancing work and family, and ensure fair and safe conditions for our care workers.
Ultimately, caring for our carers is an investment in our shared future. When we strengthen this compact for care – between Government, employers, families and the community – we build not only just a stronger care system, but a more compassionate and united Singapore. Mr Speaker, I support the amendments to the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, I would like to begin with stating my support for the amendments proposed in this Bill, which are aimed at enhancing the sustainability and equitability of the CareShield Life scheme.
As our national insurance scheme for severe disabilities above the age of 30, CareShield Life plays an important role in helping to defray the costs of long-term care, having evolved from the ElderShield scheme from earlier days. As part of the enhancements, the planned underwriting criteria for Optional Cohorts born before 1980 will be reinstated.
This will mean that persons with existing disabilities born before 1980 will not be able to join the scheme. But when we look at the bigger picture, this will help with reducing the uncertainty when the actuaries are calculating the premiums and thereby reducing the extent of premium increases for everyone in the Optional Cohorts.
I am heartened to know that there will be other long-term care subsidies and grants available to them, such as the Home Caregiving Grant. I would like to call upon the Government to continue to monitor the situation for persons in the Optional Cohorts to ensure that they are able to afford the long-term care that they need.
I would also like to ask if the Government has data on the percentage of this group who has made other plans to pay for the provision of long-term care, such as private insurance, and whether these plans are deemed sufficient.
It is crucial that CareShield Life remains financially viable and sustainable. I can understand that the proposed annual increase in both payout growth rate and premiums from 2026 to 2030 can help to ensure that the scheme keeps pace with inflation and rising care costs. I understand that this enhancement will be reviewed after 2030, but it will be difficult to imagine that premiums will not continue to rise.
I am assured by the Government's commitment of over $570 million in additional premium support to offset more than 30% of the premium increase over the next five years. These Government subsidies for the premiums, especially for the lower-income groups, enhance affordability and ensure majority participation in the scheme. I am also glad to note that the Government has reiterated that no one will lose coverage due to their inability to pay their premiums.
I would like to ask the Minister, beyond the next five years of insurance premium support, what are the Government's plans to continue to ensure that CareShield Life remains affordable for our people in the face of rising premiums?
CareShield Life is designed to provide basic financial support and reduce out-of-pocket expenses should an insured develop severe disability and need long-term care. For people that have to make a claim under CareShield Life, there could be other costs that cannot be fully covered by CareShield Life payouts, especially if they did not purchase a CareShield Life supplementary plan.
In effect, while CareShield Life helps to defray the costs of long-term care, Singaporeans will have to continue to ensure that they have enough savings or funding sources to afford the type of long-term care that they need and not assume that the insurance scheme will take care of everything. I hope that the Government can consider raising public awareness about the types of costs that are associated with long-term care and the kinds of support that are available to them. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] While CareShield Life helps to defray the costs of long-term care, Singaporeans will have to continue to ensure that they have enough savings or funding sources to afford the type of long-term care that they need and not assume that the insurance scheme will take care of everything. I hope that the Government can consider raising public awareness about the types of costs that are associated with long term care, and the kinds of support that are available.
(In English): In conclusion, Mr Speaker, CareShield Life's long-term sustainability faces challenges from our ageing population, rising care costs and the limited coverage relative to actual expenses. Continued Government oversight and actuarial reviews will be essential to maintaining a balance between the adequacy of benefits and the affordability of premiums over the coming decades.
Mr Speaker: Ms Elysa Chen.
Ms Elysa Chen (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the CareShield Life and Long-Term Care (Amendment) Bill at its Second Reading.
What makes Singapore a truly first world country, having systems in place to ensure we can place those who mean the world to us first. That is what truly makes us a first world society. Thus, I appreciate the Government's unwavering commitment to ensuring that CareShield Life remains a cornerstone of Singapore's social protection framework. The Government's acceptance of the council's recommendations, along with a substantial $570 million commitment in premium support over five years, clearly shows the depth of commitment to protecting Singaporeans.
However, as we move forward with these important refinements, particularly the modification of underwriting criteria, I believe it would be prudent for this House to understand the potential implications. While I fully appreciate that these changes are necessary to prevent adverse selection and maintain actuarial fairness, I would like to seek clarification from the Minister on specific areas of concern. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to seek clarification on the following two points.
First, how many individuals are projected to fall outside the scope of CareShield Life coverage due to the revised stipulations set out in this Bill? What might be the potential long-term impact of societal and healthcare costs of disability of persons excluded from the scheme?
Secondly, can the Minister clarify the precise meaning of performing an activity of daily living without assistance all the time, as stated in the new Fourth Schedule? How would this definition be applied to individuals with temporary disabilities or fluctuating or intermittent medical conditions?
Thirdly, for those who are excluded, but may apply for coverage, what are the conditions determined by the Minister, and what are the factors and considerations the CPF board will take into account in exercising its discretion under section 6(4B) of the act to grant an approval.
Lastly, what transitional provisions or support mechanisms, if any, are in place or contemplated for individuals who no longer qualify because of this legislative change? I am heartened by the Government's commitment that enhanced payouts will grow from $731 monthly in 2026, to over $800 by 2030, providing meaningful relief to families facing the profound and persistent challenges of severe disability. [Please refer to clarification later in the debate.] The streamlined assessment processes and expansion of accredited assessors will, undoubtedly, reduce burdens on families during their most difficult times.
Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill represents not just legislative refinement, but a reaffirmation of our social compact to care for the most vulnerable among us. It demonstrates that we can strengthen our schemes' sustainability, while deepening our support for those who need it most.
The balance between fiscal responsibility and social protection is commendable and necessary for the long-term viability of our social safety nets. In my maiden speech, I describe caregiving as a relentless wind buffeting a tree in a storm.
Sir, CareShield Life is like a lighthouse, standing steadfast against the storms of uncertainty that age and illness may bring. Its light must reach everyone, especially those navigating the toughest waters. As we refine the system, let us ensure that no one drifts unseen beyond its beam of protection.
With these questions, I look forward to the Minister's reply and further details on the measures to safeguard the inclusivity and effectiveness of CareShield Life. Notwithstanding the questions I have raised, I commend the Minister and his team for their thoughtful approach to these complex challenges and support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Dr Hamid Razak.
Dr Hamid Razak (West Coast-Jurong West): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you. Before I begin, I wish to declare that I am an orthopedic surgeon in practice and, from time to time, I do medical assessments for permanent disability. I rise in support of the CareShield Life and Long-Term Care (Amendment) Bill.
I want to first start commending the Ministry of Health, our public officers and the CareShield Life Council for continually refining this critical social protection framework that safeguards Singaporeans against the long-term financial impact of severe disability.
CareShield Life is not merely an insurance scheme but one of the key pillars of our health and social security ecosystem. It reflects our collective commitment to care for one another, not only in good health, but also when illness or disability affects our independence and dignity.
This Bill, by updating definitions, clarifying administrative provisions and streamlining service processes, demonstrates the Government's responsiveness to demographic shifts and societal change. While I broadly support the Bill, I would like to raise several suggestions for consideration, really aimed at strengthening the fairness, inclusion and sustainability within the CareShield Life framework.
Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 3 of the Bill introduces the concept of the Singapore Citizenship/Permanent Residence date. The date an individual becomes a Singapore Citizen or Permanent Resident. This clause rightly ensures that automatic coverage applies only if the person is not disabled at that point, safeguarding the integrity and sustainability of the insurance pool.
However, this may unintentionally exclude long-serving residents who attain citizenship or permanent residence later in life, after decades of service, taxes and social contribution. By the time they become Singaporeans or Permanent Residents, some may already have developed chronic or mobility-related conditions.
For such individuals, the inability to access CareShield Life coverage can leave them feeling vulnerable and dependent on family or charity. I would, therefore, urge the Ministry to consider a transitional enrolment mechanism, perhaps through a time-limited transitional enrolment window with medical review or a subsidised premium buy-in or a limited base-coverage plan for those with pre-existing conditions. This would combine fairness across cohorts and affirm our ethos that contribution to society should never go unrecognised.
Mr Speaker, Sir, second point concerns dementia, a condition that is sadly growing prevalent in our ageing society. Current estimates suggest that one in 10 seniors above 60 in Singapore lives with dementia, and this number is projected to reach well over 150,000 by 2030. As we know, dementia progressively affects memory, reasoning and daily functioning, often leaving the person dependent on full-time care. Yet, under current arrangements, dementia patients do not automatically qualify for CareShield Life claims and must, first, undergo a severe disability assessment to determine the impact of dementia or cognitive impairment on their functional abilities.
While clinical evaluation is important, this additional step can cause delay, uncertainty and emotional stress for families already struggling with care arrangements. I propose that these patients already have a clinical diagnosis of dementia and this could be used to trigger automatic base-tier eligibility under CareShield Life, with subsequent functional assessment determining higher-tier payouts.
This would affirm the dignity of those living with dementia and provide greater peace of mind to caregivers – many of whom are already ageing spouses or adult children managing multiple responsibilities. Recognising dementia under CareShield Life would bring policy coherence and, importantly, compassion into one framework.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the third area relates to mental health. While we have made commendable progress in destigmatising mental illness and expanding community mental health services, the CareShield Life framework remains primarily oriented around physical disability, although our National Mental Health and Well-Being Strategy rightly emphasises holistic recovery.
Yet, for many individuals, mental illness can be equally disabling, preventing them from working, maintaining self-care or even engaging socially. Conditions, such as severe depression, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, can become long-term and debilitating.
In fact, as an example, one of my Jurong Spring residents often comes to me complaining that her 19-year-old nephew, due to schizophrenia, basically lies in bed for 18 hours a day, similar to many patients with physical disability, and this takes a toll on her as a single caregiver.
I would suggest that the Ministry explore ways to include mid- to severe-level mental illnesses within the Act's coverage parameters, based on formal and structured psychiatric assessment. The Government's plans to add 500 acute psychiatric beds by 2040 already underpin the burden of mental illness in our society.
Eligibility for this could be based on three factors: chronicity of disease, treatability and degree of functional impairment. These, of course, could be assessed by psychiatrists. By integrating mental health conditions into our longer-term care framework, we send an important signal that mental wellness is not peripheral to healthcare but central to human dignity and societal participation. This would also encourage early intervention, continuous treatment and family support, key tenets of our national mental health strategy.
Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 5 of the Bill introduces a new section 61A, which modernises how demand notes may be served, including electronically, which is a step forward, in my opinion, in administrative efficiency, aligning with our national Smart Nation vision and the broader digital transformation of our public services.
This same spirit of simplification can extend to the claims interface itself. Currently, caregivers of severely disabled or dementia-afflicted family members must navigate multiple forms, medical reports and appeals, often while juggling employment and caregiving duties. This process can be exhausting, especially when they are elderly caregivers who are not digitally fluent.
A unified online platform, perhaps integrated into current existing platforms, could allow caregivers to view eligibility status, submit documentation, receive updates and access related schemes, such as AIC support services.
Such streamlining would not only reduce the administrative friction but also convey empathy through design, ensuring that our social insurance processes are as humane as the principles behind them. Ultimately, a compassionate policy must also feel compassionate in process.
Mr Speaker, Sir, beyond financial assistance, the real test of long-term care policy lies in how it supports the people behind the patients – the caregivers themselves and I am really heartened to see Hon. Members Mr Ng Chee Meng, Ms He Ting Ru and Ms Yeo Wan Ling reiterated this in their speeches earlier. Many Singaporean families are quietly performing full-time caregiving roles at home, often without formal training or respite. They manage medications, behavioural changes and physical lifting, sometimes for years.
Recent heartbreaking cases remind us of the quiet struggles many caregivers face and the question that lingers is, who will look after the vulnerable when caregivers themselves can no longer do so? The emotional and financial toll is significant and while CareShield Life helps with the costs, it does not yet address the broader ecosystem of caregivers' needs.
I urge the Ministry to deepen integration and interaction between CareShield Life, the AIC, Silver Support and Healthier SG initiatives, so that financial, emotional and respite support reach families seamlessly. Such coordination would reflect a care partnership model, recognising that the caregiver's well-being is a crucial part of the patient's recovery and quality of life. As our society ages, empowering caregivers will become as important as funding the care itself.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the CareShield Life and Long-Term Care Act embodies Singapore's ethos of mutual care and responsibility – that we pool the risk as a society so that no one faces disability alone. The current amendments modernise and strengthen that system. But as we look ahead, we must ensure that CareShield Life continues to evolve from purely a financial safety net into a comprehensive framework of care and dignity – one that embraces mental and cognitive conditions, supports caregivers and includes all who call Singapore home.
By doing so, we move closer to a society that values every life, not just for its productivity, but also for its humanity. From insurance to assurance, that should be the next chapter of CareShield Life.
Notwithstanding my suggestions, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.
Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. This first major review since 2020 strengthens a safety net that more families will rely on in the years ahead.
From 2026 to 2030, payouts under CareShield Life will grow at 4% a year, which means that a new claimant in 2030 can expect about $806 a month, a meaningful step-up to keep pace with rising long-term care costs.
To cushion the impact on households, I welcome the Government’s commitment of $570 million in additional premium support over five years, which will help moderate the premium increases for workers and families who are already managing higher everyday expenses.
I am also reassured that premiums remain fully payable by MediSave, because, at its heart, a national safety net must be accessible to all where no one should lose coverage simply because they cannot afford to pay at a point in time.
The case for action is clear. By 2026, Singapore will be a super-aged society. Severe disability can strike in mid-life as well as old age; claimants have ranged from 30 to 93, with a median age of 52.
As a labour Member of Parliament, I view this Bill through the lens of working families and caregivers on the ground. My remarks focus on the \"3As\": Affordability, Adequacy, and Accessibility, with prevention, cost transparency, and the care workforce woven through each.
Sir, the expanded means-tested premium subsidies, up to 30%, together with higher income thresholds and the increase of the Home Caregiving Grant to $600 in April 2026, will make a practical difference to households who are watching every dollar.
These measures are necessary, but they must also feel fair in real life, not just on paper. For many self-employed and commission-based workers, their incomes swing month to month. Means-testing should therefore reflect typical earnings over a reasonable period, rather than penalising a brief spike that nudges a family across a line.
Affordability must also recognise gendered realities. Women often shoulder more caregiving and face career interruptions; we should continue monitoring women’s affordability and study targeted participation incentives for those who have prolonged caregiving spells, so premiums remain manageable without eroding retirement adequacy.
Affordability also depends on families knowing what to plan for. To give households and policymakers shared, reliable signposts, I propose an Annual Long-term Care (LTC) Cost and Workforce Report. This should set out a simple, public “basic basket” of long-term care costs across home care, day care and nursing home settings, including transport and consumables, alongside wage and staffing trends in the care sector.
With clearer signals, we can calibrate subsidies early, rather than react late, and keep CareShield Life affordable and sustainable. Finally, the most affordable dollar is the one we never have to spend. Sustained investment in promoting physical and mental well-being, chronic disease control, early rehab, and community health can delay or possibly avert disability and reduce time spent in severe disability. Upstream health is not a slogan; it is the first pillar of affordability for our families.
So, I urge MOH to continue keep scaling Healthier SG community programmes that help workers maintain good health and mental health, so they can stay employed longer and recover better if illness ever strikes.
Sir, my next point is on adequacy. CareShield Life provides basic, lifelong protection. Keeping the claims threshold of three of six ADLs preserves affordability for the broadest base, while those who want earlier triggers can opt for supplement plans.
That balance between solidarity and choice is appropriate for a national scheme.
I note ground feedback that I have received from care workers and our unions that even with faster payout growth, the net dollar impact, after premium increases, may fall short for some families, and that some private supplements pay from one to two ADLs.
While I support keeping CareShield Life affordable at three ADLs, I ask MOH to publish side-by-side publications, illustrations of premiums and payouts, base scheme versus supplements, so households can make informed choices.
Adequacy must keep pace with reality on the ground. If care inflation or sector wage growth outstrips payout growth beyond 2030, we should be prepared to adjust the scheme parameters. The Annual LTC Cost and Workforce Report will give the Council and us in Parliament early warnings of cost and wage pressures, so refinements can be timely rather than overdue.
Adequacy rests on people, not just on numbers. When care workers are short-staffed or burnt out, our families end up paying more, paying more for private help or coping alone. We should therefore scale workplace transformation through Company Training Committees, for example, workflow redesign, assistive technologies, tele-rehab and AI-enabled documentation, to lift productivity while protecting rest time.
Crucially, productivity gains should translate into fair wages for care workers and tangible savings for families. A stable, respected workforce is how we keep services available at a standard and cost that families can live with.
My third point, Sir, is on accessibility. Access should feel straightforward in moments that are anything but. A single severe-disability assessment ought to open the door to related schemes, such as the Home Caregiving Grant, without repeated forms and revisits. Where clinically appropriate, tele-assessments can spare less-mobile seniors and time-pressed caregivers additional trips.
Two refinements would make the process fairer without changing the ADL threshold: first, assessment guidance should explicitly recognise supervision needs arising from cognitive impairment or serious mental health conditions, so assessors apply criteria consistently and compassionately; second, repeat assessments should be waived or further subsidised when a condition’s trajectory is pretty clear, and recent specialist documentation should be accepted where appropriate. Alongside this, aligning eligibility rules, including property AV thresholds, would prevent families from qualifying for one scheme but missing out on another due to technicalities. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, in my constituency of Kolam Ayer, comprising old estates like Bendemeer, Geylang Bahru, Sims Vista and St George's, many senior citizens live close to their children and grandchildren.
In many Malay/Muslim families, caregiving duties are shouldered by working family members, including the women, in addition to raising children and supporting parents. Daily costs, such as transport, adult diapers and follow-up treatment, can rise quickly, and the mental stress of caregivers often goes unnoticed.
Therefore, three priorities must be given urgency: flexible work as the norm so that caregivers can remain employed; a \"one-stop\" service for assessment, grants, such as the Home Caregiving Grant, and community services; and pathways to return to work through training credits, job placement and CPF support so that retirement needs are not affected.
These measures improve access, lighten the burden and protect the mental well-being of caregivers.
(In English): Sir, in conclusion, if we get the \"3As\" right, affordability with fair help and clear cost signals, adequacy that keeps pace with real pressures and is anchored by a respected care workforce, and accessibility that is simpler, faster and kinder, then seniors in our older estates like mine and caregivers across Singapore can face the future with dignity and confidence.
This Bill moves us in the right direction. Let us pair it with the Annual LTC Cost and Workforce Report that I suggested, sustained workforce transformation that shares gains with both families and workers, and continued emphasis on prevention and mental well-being. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, I stand in support of the Bill, which seeks to implement the recommendations made by the CareShield Life Council, ensure that premiums remain affordable and importantly, to improve administration of the CareShield scheme.
Sir, the CareShield Life scheme is an important assurance for many Singaporeans, as it provides those who cannot perform three or more ADLs with lifelong protection for their long-term care needs. This gives Singaporeans an important safety net, where long-term care will remain accessible and affordable, regardless of their pre-existing conditions.
My speech today will touch on how we can better enhance these two key aspects of CareShield Life – accessibility and affordability.
Sir, the minimum age for CareShield life enrolment is when the policyholder turns 30 years of age. While I can understand every policy needs a cut-off age, I would like to ask what the policy considerations were behind limiting CareShield Life coverage to those aged 30 years and older.
Would the Minister be able to share statistics of Singaporean adults between 21 and 29 years of age, who have severe disabilities and are unable to perform at least three or more ADLs. Does this statistic differ substantially for the age group of adults between the ages of 30 and 39?
Sir, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the plight of my Radin Mas resident. Mr Ong has a 17-year-old son who has suffered an unfortunate brain injury and is therefore unable to engage in many ADLs. Mr Ong must therefore expend significant resources, and he has done so to ensure that his son is well cared for. Under the current scheme, Mr Ong’s son would only be able to enrol into CareShield Life when he turns 30.
I had written to MOH to highlight the plight of Mr Ong, and I understand from my resident that he was referred to caregiving support measures by the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) and ComCare, as his son does not meet the minimum age for CareShield Life enrolment.
While I appreciate MOH’s assistance to the resident, the support provided by AIC and ComCare to Mr Ong are general schemes that would also apply to CareShield Life policyholders who are above the age of 30.
While such situations may be rare, I am certain that it is by no means unique. Others like Mr Ong and his son would benefit from an expansion to the accessibility of the CareShield Life scheme, by lowering the minimum age of enrolment.
Given the automatic enrolment nature of the CareShield Life scheme, I propose that we should have parity with other national insurance schemes that provide automatic insurance coverage. For example, the CPF Board’s Dependants’ Protection Scheme (DPS), where automatic insurance coverage in the event of death, terminal illness, or total disabilities, is extended to Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents above the age of 21, with an option for manual application for those aged 16 and above.
While DPS and CareShield Life serve different purposes, the minimum age for coverage for debilitating injuries should be harmonised. I therefore urge MOH to consider expanding CareShield Life coverage to all adults from 21 years of age, with an option for manual application for those aged 16 and above.
We already have existing systems in place for family members to use their Medisave to pay for the CareShield Life premiums for other family members. This can be extended to the younger cohort of policyholders that I am proposing for them to be covered by CareShield Life. The various premium support measures by the Government for lower-income families can also be extended to policyholders below the age of 30, thereby ensuring minimum financial burden.
Expanding CareShield Life coverage to more adults could also have potential advantage of lowering overall risk, helping therefore to keep premiums affordable to everyone.
Sir, let me next touch on enhancing affordability of our long-term care needs. I support the proposal to double the CareShield Life payout growth rate. This is vital to ensuring that CareShield Life payouts continue to defray a meaningful portion of long-term care costs and keep bills affordable for more Singaporeans.
This is especially important as Singapore becomes a super-aged society, and our healthcare expenses continue to increase. Singaporeans should not just rely on CareShield Life. Indeed, many consumers already have private insurance policies to provide additional coverage in the event of a health incident that results in severe disability.
Despite this, insurance literacy in Singapore remains low. It is common to read in the media about consumers frequently being both under-insured where policyholders do not have adequate insurance coverage, and over-insured where policyholders have duplicate policies and excessive coverage amounts.
Both situations of being under-insured and over-insured are not ideal, as it leads to policyholders paying more and increasing their financial burden over time. But it can be hard for consumers to cut through the noise when it comes to insurance. In fact, the CPF Board has an entire toolkit, called the Health Insurance Planner, to try and help policyholders cut through \"the sheer volume of conflicting advice that makes it hard to know what to trust.\"
We must do more to improve insurance literacy and help consumers save on their healthcare bills. I urge MOH to work closely with the Consumers Association of Singapore to study insurance literacy in Singapore and to work on improving consumer knowledge about how to best safeguard themselves against sudden, unintended, healthcare expenses.
In closing, the amendments proposed under the Bill are timely, as it will help ensure that CareShield Life payouts continue to defray a sizeable proportion of healthcare costs for those who suffer severe disabilities. I urge MOH to expand the minimum age of enrolment for the scheme, to help young adults with disabilities and to improve insurance literacy among consumers. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Dr Choo Pei Ling.
Dr Choo Pei Ling (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to declare that I am a registered member of the Allied Health Professions Council and my work involves assessing, treating and educating on disability.
CareShield Life will play an increasingly vital role in our social safety net as we join the ranks of super aged societies. As a cornerstone of our national insurance framework, its financial support ensures that Singaporeans and Permanent Residents with severe disability and who require long-term care will have the funds to meet their care needs. I support the review and recommendations of the CareShield Life Council, which have been timely and necessary. Its stance is balanced, weighing the need for sufficient payouts for essential care against affordable premiums.
To be sustainable in the long term, higher payouts have to be backed by corresponding premium increase rates. Hence, the Government's transitional support for policyholders in the form of premium subsidies, is welcomed. After this five-year financial support ends, how would the Government ensure that the premiums remain affordable? Would the MOH consider premium discounts for policyholders who lead healthier lifestyles, such as abstention from smoking?
I welcome the Government's decision to improve and simplify the claims process and streamline applications across all national care schemes which the claimants are eligible for, as recommended by the Council.
One of the Council's recommendations being considered by MOH is tele-assessments for claimants, in addition to those performed at their own residences, public hospitals and the assessors' places of practice, such as clinics. When does the Ministry expect to conclude its feasibility study on this? How will the assessors guard against fraud and potential misdiagnoses for tele-assessments?
Assessors play a pivotal role in the CareShield Life scheme, serving as the gatekeepers who determine eligibility for payouts based on an individual's ability to perform ADLs. Their assessments directly impact the timeliness and fairness of financial support for those in severe disability, making their expertise and judgment essential to the integrity of the system. As we seek to improve the claims process and make it more claimant-friendly, it is timely to ask: what qualifications and training are required to become an assessor and how are we ensuring that there are enough assessors to meet growing demand?
As of 2024, there were 1,821 active claimants under CareShield Life. The age of the claimants ranged from 30 to 93, with about half of them in their 30s and 40s.
Would MOH provide a breakdown of the claimants by age groups of 10, for example, starting from age 30 to 40, 40 to 50 and so on; and by types of major causes, such as strokes, hereditary diseases and so on? With these information, would it be possible to implement preventive measures to reduce the number of cases in each age and vulnerability group?
In addition, would the Ministry share how many cases of appeal it had received in each of the years since CareShield Life started? What were the percentages of successful and unsuccessful appeal cases? What were the lessons learnt from these appeals and how has the Ministry improved on its assessment process?
Mr Speaker, these changes demonstrate our commitment to make CareShield Life financially sustainable and people-centric in its delivery. We must continue to review the scheme periodically to ensure that it serves our people expediently and compassionately in their time of need. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill strengthens one of our most important social-safety pillars – long-term care protection for Singaporeans. The decision to double payout growth to 4% until 2030 is both bold and prudent. It helps residents keep pace with rising care costs.
The Government's $570 million in additional premium support also sends a clear message – as we enhance the scheme, we will not leave low- and middle-income families behind. Yet, a scheme of this scale must be more than sustainable and fair in design. It must also be compassionate and clear in execution. With that in mind, I will raise four key areas for clarification.
Mr Speaker, Sir, my first point concerns section 6, which governs automatic inclusion. The amendment replaces the earlier threshold of being \"not severely disabled\" with a new statutory test of being \"not disabled.\" The difference may seem subtle, but it can be significant. An individual must now be able to perform all six ADLs without assistance, all the time. That is a much higher functional bar.
Under the new section 6(1)(b)(iii)(A), Singaporeans and Permanent Residents born before 1980 will be automatically enrolled only if they are not disabled when they first become citizens or Permanent Residents. Those who are disabled at that time will not be automatically included. However, under section 6(4)(b), the CPF Board retains discretion to cover such individuals on a case-by-case basis.
For those who became Singapore citizens or Permanent Residents before the commencement of this amendment, the earlier \"not severely disabled\" threshold will continue to apply. This ensures continuity and fairness for those who entered the scheme under earlier rules.
Reinstating underwriting for older cohorts is understandable for financial sustainability. But it also risks leaving behind residents who are still in recovery. A caregiver in Yio Chu Kang once told me about her husband's post-stroke journey: \"Some days he can lift himself. Some days he cannot.\" Should a single assessment, taken mid-recovery, permanently close the door to protection? Could the Ministry consider a more compassionate filter, such as, temporary waiting periods or premium loadings for manageable pre-existing conditions? This approach would allow recovery and inclusion to remain possible, while managing risk fairly.
And for those still in rehabilitation, could there be a reassessment window, perhaps 12 to 24 months later, to give them a second chance once their condition stabilises? Making a lifelong decision based on one judgment carries enormous weight. We know assessor judgments can vary. What training and quality-assurance framework will ensure consistency, so that residents' futures are not determined by luck?
Finally, transparency builds trust. Will MOH publish annual statistics on applications, acceptances, rejections and appeals for this older-cohort group? This will help the public monitor fairness and coverage over time.
Mr Speaker, Sir, my second point concerns disability assessments. The \"assess once, apply to many\" approach reduces paperwork for families. But it also means that the result of a single assessment now carries more weight than ever before.
The Bill codifies in the new Fourth Schedule that a person is \"not disabled\" only if they can perform all six ADLs without assistance, all the time. This phrase, now enshrined in statute rather than just clinical guidance, represents a significant tightening of the functional benchmark. It may be precise, but it does not reflect the lived reality of many seniors whose abilities fluctuate from day to day. Some residents worry that outcomes can feel like a lottery – depending on who their assessor is, where the assessment is held, or even the time of day.
How can we assure them that the system sees people, not checkboxes? Will MOH publish the clinical guidance and training protocols for accredited assessors? How frequent will audits be? Will the results, such as inter-assessor reliability rates, be made public? And if a resident disagrees with an assessment, can they appeal directly through CPF Board channels?
Beyond procedure, the assessment must capture lived reality. A 30-minute clinical test cannot show how a senior manages narrow corridors, steep steps, or the absence of grab bars at home. Can caregiver testimony and home-environment factors be formally considered as part of every assessment?
A caregiver in Yio Chu Kang told me that bringing her frail mother across town for an assessment left both of them in tears. To ease such stress, can MOH pilot video-based assessments for bedridden seniors, conducted with caregivers present? To safeguard the integrity of ADL assessments, I suggest three measures.
First, a second assessment by another provider upon appeal, so no senior's fate rests on one single judgement. Second, formal integration of caregiver testimony into reports and third, public release of audit and appeal data to reinforce public trust. I also note that under section 63 of the Act, the Minister may amend the Schedules – including this new Fourth Schedule – by order in the Gazette. This flexibility is important to ensure that our definitions of disability can evolve alongside medical knowledge and social realities.
Mr Speaker, Sir, my next point concerns the Bill's overhaul of document service under sections 61 and 61A. These clauses modernise how official notices, including demand notes, are served. Importantly, the Bill now requires written consent, replacing the previous implied consent for email service. This is a significant safeguard. Written consent may be given in either physical or digital form, but it must be explicit and verifiable, not assumed. I support this move.
Still, we must ensure seniors truly understand what they are consenting to. How will we protect seniors from replying to fraudulent emails that look official? Under the new section 61A, a demand note can be served by post, by hand, by fax or by email. Email service is only allowed with written consent, or if the person replies to an email after being clearly informed that such a reply counts as consent. This legal structure is well thought out. But will ordinary residents understand it?
To reduce confusion, can all demand notes, whether physical or digital, be written in plain language, in all four official languages and paired with an SMS alert? A simple text saying, \"You have an official notice. Please check your mailbox or MyInfo\", can prevent panic and reduce the risk of scams. Most critically, can the Senior Minister of State assure this House that no policy will lapse while a senior is still clarifying a discrepancy or appealing a premium issue? Efficiency must never come at the cost of compassion. Furthermore, to shift responsibility from seniors to the system, I would suggest for digital-only communication to be opt-in for residents aged 65 and above. Those who are confident online can choose it. And those who are not, should continue receiving paper notices.
Fourth, Mr Speaker, Sir, looking ahead, the 4% payout growth until 2030 gives citizens confidence for the near term. But long-term care is a multi-decade challenge.
Can the Senior Minister of State share how payouts will be indexed beyond 2030? Will there be an automatic formula pegged to a dedicated long-term care inflation index? Or will each adjustment still require a separate review? To ensure payouts remain meaningful, could MOH set a public benchmark? For example, anchoring benefits to a fixed proportion of median nursing home or home care costs. Would the Ministry also consider a triennial actuarial review tied specifically to long-term care inflation? A predictable three-year cycle would make adjustments transparent and consistent.
Yet, payouts are only half the story. The other half is access to care. In estates like Yio Chu Kang, where senior density is high, residents worry not just about affordability but also availability. Will there be enough home care slots, therapists and community-based services nearby?
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill strengthens the foundation of CareShield Life. But our task is not only to build a stronger system. It is to build a more human one.
In my speech, we have spoken about fairness, making sure that older Singaporeans who are still recovering are not permanently excluded. We have spoken about compassion, ensuring disability assessments are consistent, holistic and grounded in the lived realities of our seniors and caregivers. We have spoken about protection, guarding senior residents from confusion and scams as services move online. And we have spoken about foresight, keeping CareShield Life sustainable and meaningful well beyond 2030.
These are not administrative details. These are choices about the kind of society we want to grow old in, one defined by fairness, empathy and respect. As policymakers, our responsibility does not end with legislation. It begins with listening, to every caregiver, every senior who worries about digital notices and every resident who wonders if the system will remember them when they grow old.
Let us make CareShield Life not just a financial safety net but a moral compact. One that says, in Singapore, we see our seniors not as dependents but as dignified individuals who built the foundation we now stand on. Let us commit, as Government, as community, as people, to ensure the compassion we enshrine in this Bill is felt in every assessment, every letter and every act of care.
Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the Singapore we must build, one where no one is left behind, not by circumstance, not by design and not by time. I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Elysa Chen, you have a clarification?
Ms Elysa Chen: Mr Speaker, I would like to make a clarification. I said earlier that payouts would grow from $731 monthly in 2026. I misspoke. The figure should be $689.
Mr Speaker: Alright, thank you. Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon.
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Members who have spoken for their unanimous support for the amendments proposed in this Bill. And I thank them also for the thoughtful questions and useful suggestions they have given. I have touched on some of these in my opening speech. So, I will now elaborate more on those other areas that were raised by Members on three different areas: one, supporting\tSingaporeans\twith\tlong-term\tcare needs; two, keeping CareShield Life affordable and sustainable; and three, simplifying processes and improving access to financial support.
First, on supporting Singaporeans with long-term care needs. I have already explained this earlier but I think it is worth re-emphasising that CareShield Life cannot be seen in isolation. It must be viewed alongside other layers of long-term care support, such as subsidies and grants, healthcare savings and social safety nets.
Mr Ng Chee Meng and Ms Yeo Wan Ling will be heartened to know that the Government has been progressively enhancing these layers of support. We enhanced the Caregivers Training Grant last year to better support individuals undergoing caregiver training. From next year, long-term care recipients and their caregivers will also enjoy further support for long-term care, through enhancements to Home Caregiving Grant and long-term care subsidies. Together, these enhancements to financing mechanisms complement each other to ensure that Singaporeans can access affordable long-term care when they need it most.
We recognise that Singaporeans have different long-term care needs and preferences. As earlier mentioned, this is why we have made CareShield Life optional, for existing Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents born 1979 and earlier. As for new Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents, they are required to join CareShield Life as part of the compact of becoming a new Singapore Citizen or Permanent Resident and this is made known to them at the point of application to be a citizen or a Permanent Resident.
Mr Ng Chee Meng asked how the Government will ensure that CareShield Life payouts remain meaningful and adequate. The CareShield Life Council had recommended doubling the payout growth rate from 2% to 4% per annum to allow payouts to more meaningfully cushion against rising long-term care costs. The Council considered whether to make further enhancements to payouts, but was careful to balance benefit enhancements with premium affordability for policyholders. As part of the review, the Council consulted the public on a range of enhancement options through focus group discussions, including a higher payout growth rate.
However, ultimately, there was recognition that premium affordability must remain a priority for our national scheme designed to provide basic coverage. The Council's recommendation therefore balanced the need for meaningful support while keeping CareShield Life accessible to all Singaporeans.
Nevertheless, those seeking more comprehensive coverage on top of CareShield Life and who are willing to pay higher premiums for this can consider privately-offered supplement products. The premiums for these can also be paid for using MediSave, up to the annual withdrawal limits.
I would like to preface that the ADLs construct, is recognised internationally for disability assessments by entities, such as the World Health Organization and the European Union. It is also commonly used by insurers. This is because the ADLs construct is an objective measure of the level of caregiving assistance that a patient requires, regardless of the underlying conditions. For the purpose of CareShield Life, the loss of three ADLs remains an appropriate threshold to indicate severe disability and higher care needs.
Mr Alex Yam, Dr Wan Rizal and Dr Hamid Razak asked how CareShield Life supports those with cognitive disabilities and impairments, such as dementia patients, as they, too, have significant care needs.
MOH's severe disability assessment framework does consider the impact of cognitive impairments on one's ability to independently perform an activity of daily living. For example, an individual with severe dementia may physically be able to chew and swallow the food but may not remember how to do it without supervision. This individual would be assessed to be unable to perform this ADL due to his cognitive impairment. And you can imagine, the same patient with dementia who may not be able to remember how to feed himself or herself could well also not remember how to dress himself or herself and may also have problems managing their toileting functions and, in which case, they will have crossed the threshold of three ADLs to qualify for payouts. Such individuals, therefore, can qualify for CareShield Life payouts when they are unable to perform three ADLs.
Mr Melvin Yong asked if the CareShield Life mandatory enrolment age can be lowered from age 30 to 21, with an optional enrolment application for those aged 16 and above.
CareShield Life policyholders pay premiums during their working years for protection against severe disability, which occurs mostly at older ages. Mandatory coverage begins at age 30 as most Singaporeans would have started work by then, have some income and savings in their MediSave accounts so they can use these MediSave savings to pay for their premiums. So, it is a design feature of CareShield Life to make sure that it is something that is affordable, that those who have begun working for some time will begin to be able to service their premiums.
If we extend CareShield Life coverage to those aged 16 and above on an optional basis, this will lead to adverse selection where those who are more likely to make claims are more likely to opt in. This will push up premiums for everyone else in that cohort. There is a clear trade-off here and such a move needs to be considered very carefully. But I would like to assure Members that young Singaporeans with disability requiring assistance to perform their ADLs, can access other Government schemes besides CareShield Life and these include, long-term care subsidies and grants, such as the Home Caregiving Grant, as well as safety nets, such as MediFund. So, we will make sure that care is affordable and is accessible to everyone.
Second, on keeping CareShield Life affordable and sustainable.
Members would appreciate that for any insurance scheme to be sustainable, enhancements in benefits must be accompanied by a corresponding adjustment in premiums. Several Members who spoke earlier made this point as well.
To support the increase in payout growth rate, there needs to be a one-step increase in premiums in 2026, followed by 4% increase per annum thereafter. Given that the one-step increase is something that may be of concern to policyholders, we are providing an additional $570 million in premium support to cushion the increase for all policyholders. This includes transitional premium support to spread out and slowly phase in the increase over the next five years. With this support, annual premium increases from 2026 to 2030 are moderated to $38 on average and no more than $75. Lower- and middle-income policyholders will see even lower premium increases, as they will enjoy further subsidies.
Mr Ng Chee Meng, Ms Joan Pereira and Dr Choo Pei Ling asked how we can keep premiums affordable even after this transitional support ends. Beyond the transitional support, MOH will continue to provide means-tested premium subsidies for lower- and middle-income policyholders. This will offset up to 30% of their premiums.
Premiums will also continue to be fully payable by MediSave, with additional support provided to those with lower MediSave balances. Recently, in July 2025, the Government provided MediSave top-ups of about $320 million to 600,000 Singaporeans. The Government will also be introducing the Matched MediSave Scheme from 2026, with 1:1 Government matching for voluntary cash top-ups of up to $1,000 per year, for those with lower MediSave balances.
Lastly, there is also the Additional Premium Support for policyholders, which Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked about. We will extend invitations to policyholders who are unable to afford their CareShield Life premiums even after subsidies and family support to apply for this additional premium support. I would like to assure this House and reiterate, once again, that no one will lose CareShield Life coverage due to an inability to afford premiums.
Ms Jessica Tan and Dr Wan Rizal have asked about the means-testing framework. In particular, concerns have been raised on whether the current approach towards considering property AV disadvantages some policyholders, such as in a scenario in which policyholders receive less subsidies after retirement when they no longer earn an income.
Let me, first, recap that CareShield Life premiums are typically paid through MediSave contributions during one's working years. So, in general, policyholders from lower-income households receive more premium subsidies than those from higher income households. For most policyholders, there will be no more premium payments after retirement, as CareShield Life premium payments currently end at age 67. This is pegged to the re-employment age in 2020 when the scheme was launched. So, the issue of a retiree living in a private property with high AV is not really relevant here. Most of them, by that age, would have stopped paying premiums. Only a small group of individuals in the Optional Cohort, who had chosen to opt-in at older ages, would have to pay premiums beyond age 67. We, likewise, support eligible individuals through premium subsidies and, in addition, those who joined before 31 December 2024 would have also been receiving additional participation incentives of up to $4,000 in total, to offset their premiums.
Should anyone still face difficulty paying premiums after subsidies and other support, the Government will provide Additional Premium Support to fully cover their premiums. I say again, to fully cover the premiums. This is why I keep saying to Members that no one will lose CareShield Life coverage due to an inability to pay their premiums.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Ms He Ting Ru and Dr Wan Rizal raised concerns about premium affordability for women. This was also discussed extensively in this House in 2019 when CareShield Life was first introduced.
In general, within any insurance risk-pool, premiums are actuarially priced such that the premiums collected can pay out for expected claims. This is the case for both men and women.
Here, gender is a relevant factor for CareShield Life as the key parameters that affect long-term care insurance claims such as lifespans, duration and likelihood of disability do vary between men and women. Women tend to live longer than men and are more likely to develop severe disability, and therefore are more likely to stay in disability for a longer period.
This has remained the case in the past few years too. It will mean that in the event of a severe disability, a woman will typically receive CareShield Life payouts for a longer duration.
Support is available for women in lower-income households through existing support schemes, including premium subsidies and Additional Premium Support. Beyond these measures to ensure premium affordability for those who need more support, there is also a need to ensure that the long-term trajectory for CareShield Life premiums remains sustainable and affordable for all policyholders.
As I listened to Ms He Ting Ru's speech, I got the sense that she has not quite grasped the features of CareShield Life. There are two distinct features in CareShield Life that are quite different from all other insurance schemes.
The first is that this is a cohort-based risk pooling. In other words, the risk-pooling happens in your age cohort. It is not whole-population risk pooling, it is risk pooling among those who are born in the same birth year. It means that the burden of any premium that needs to go up is borne by a lower number of people, just in that age cohort alone.
The second feature is that this is a pre-funded scheme with limited premium contribution duration but has a lifelong payout as long as a person remains in disability.
These are two unique features.
As I said earlier, women do live longer and reach older ages where severe disability becomes more likely. The average life expectancy for women is 85.6 years in 2024 compared to 81.2 years for men. We can all understand that as one ages, at older ages, women are 10% more likely than men to enter severe disability at a given age.
This is not about discriminating women, this is just biology. It is just the way science is. As you get older, as you live longer, you are just at a higher risk for many other health problems. Women are at a higher risk of getting osteoporosis compared to men. They are therefore more likely to get severe hip fractures when they sustain a fall and they may remain disabled for a far longer period of time.
If I can just contrast the design of CareShield Life with MediShield Life, which will hopefully illustrate why there is that gender differentiation in the premium.
MediShield Life policyholders pay premiums for life as opposed to CareShield Life, where you stop paying when you reach 67. This means that for MediShield Life, there is no need to insure against the different life expectancies across genders, because the premiums are payable for every year of coverage. If you live longer, you just pay more premiums. For every year you live, you pay.
CareShield Life, as I have said, one of the features is that it is pre-funded – for a limited duration, while one is working. Over a lifetime, while women may make more claims due to a longer life expectancy, they will also have to pay more for their premiums because there is the only fair principle. If you are going to claim more and claim for longer, one pays more during the contribution years.
Sir, it is about being fair to both genders. It is not about discriminating women or being unfair to women. It is also being fair to the men. Remember, this is about risk-pooling within one cohort, with a limited number of people sharing the risk and therefore, maintaining the payouts for that cohort that needs to claim.
A key change that we are introducing through this Bill is intended to safeguard the sustainability and affordability of CareShield Life. By restoring the underwriting criteria for the scheme, we will lower premiums for older Optional Cohort policyholders who today pay higher annual premiums than the mandatory cohort policyholders who joined the scheme at a younger age.
I hear Ms Elysa Chen, Ms Jessica Tan and Dr Hamid Razak's concerns over whether reinstating underwriting criteria would make the scheme less inclusive. Let me take the opportunity to emphasise that for all Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents born in 1980 and later, CareShield Life coverage is universal, regardless of preexisting disability.
This means that a young person in the mandatory cohort with preexisting disability will still be auto-enrolled when he turns 30 years old. He will pay the premiums for his age once on enrolment and if he is determined upon disability assessment to meet the three ADLs threshold for severe disability, he will be eligible for claims for life thereafter and stop paying further premiums.
This is how we make sure that the scheme is inclusive and takes care of those with needs.
For the Optional Cohort, those born in 1979 and earlier, we had provided a time-limited concession for those with mild or moderate disabilities to join the scheme. This concession, as I have said earlier, was originally intended to be for two years, up to 2023. After two years, we extended this concession to enable more to join in. The extension enabled us to redouble our outreach efforts in the post-COVID-19 period. We also extended the duration of participation incentives and conducted extensive outreach to seniors to encourage them to join. In fact, the concession period lasted for about four years in total.
As of June 2025, about 900,000 individuals in the Optional Cohort, or about half of the cohort, have enrolled in CareShield Life. If we were to include those who chose to remain on ElderShield, about seven in 10 older Singaporeans are enrolled in our national long-term care insurance schemes. So, the coverage is not bad.
As shared in my opening speech, new CareShield Life applications from the Optional Cohort have decreased by almost 90% compared to when the scheme was first launched. Most Optional Cohort individuals who wanted to join CareShield Life would have already done so by now. Hence, the CareShield Life Council has assessed that it is timely to reinstate the planned underwriting criteria from 1 January 2026 onwards.
This will moderate the premium impact for all Optional Cohort policyholders, keeping the scheme fair and sustainable. To keep the scheme fair, this approach will be taken for new Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents of the same age groups as well.
Ms Mariam Jaafar, Ms He Ting Ru, Ms Joan Pereira and Ms Elysa Chen asked whether there have been sufficient provisions made for those in the Optional Cohorts who may have chosen not to enroll in CareShield Life.
As mentioned in my opening remarks, there are different layers of financial support for those who require long-term care. Individuals may have chosen to prepare for and pay for their long-term care in other ways, such as through personal savings or private insurance. For those who are not enrolled in CareShield Life, there continues to be other layers of support, such as subsidies and grants, which have been significantly enhanced recently. I hope this addresses Ms He Ting Ru's concerns.
MOH will continually review our financing schemes to ensure that long-term care costs remain affordable.
Another change we are making through this Bill is to strengthen our provisions for premium recovery. Specifically, the provisions in the Bill enable us to serve important documents to policyholders through additional modalities, including electronic means.
Let me explain that this is on top of existing modalities, not replacing existing modes. So, I want to assure Mr Alex Yam and Mr Yip Hon Weng that physical notifications will continue to be sent to all policyholders where necessary, including those who are less tech savvy.
More broadly, the changes are necessary to equip our administering agencies with tools to recover premiums that are due. Without such tools, premiums owed by wilful defaulters will become bad debt, which will be borne as higher premiums by other policyholders in that cohort. This is unfair to those who have been responsibly paying their premiums.
Members have rightly observed that an ageing population and rising costs of care could present challenges to premium affordability over the long run. We agree with Ms Mariam Jaafar that sustained investment in prevention and well-being is crucial. The Government is paying close attention to these trends and has embarked on national strategies to address this. This includes Healthier SG and Age Well SG, which aim to empower Singaporeans to live healthy and active lives.
By staying in good health, we not only minimise the cost of care, but importantly, enable every Singaporean to live their lives to the fullest. That in itself should be the biggest benefit to Singaporeans, although there are also other subsidies and incentives in place to promote preventive health.
Dr Choo Pei Ling suggested offering CareShield Life premium discounts for those who lead healthier lifestyles. At the heart of Dr Choo's question and suggestion is the principle that prevention is better than cure. We fully agree with that. I had earlier shared the strategies the Government has rolled out to support healthy and active living. Premium discounts are an extension of this.
MOH had rolled out a premium discount pilot for MediShield Life just last month. Eligible Singaporeans participating in healthy lifestyle programmes and challenges will be rewarded with discounts of up to $580 off their MediShield Life premiums per year.
Unlike MediShield Life, CareShield Life is still a nascent scheme with just a few years of claims experience. This is especially since onset of severe disability typically takes place only at older ages and most CareShield Life policyholders are still young today. Therefore, there is only limited data, including on how healthy behaviours translate to lower claims for severe disability.
When more claims data is available, we can consider if similar premium discounts can be considered in future.
The CareShield Council will also review CareShield Life regularly over time to ensure that both the benefits and premiums, including the actuarial assumptions, remain relevant and sustainable over time as our demographic profile evolves.
The Council regularly monitors the financial status of the CareShield Life and ElderShield Insurance Fund to ensure that premiums, which are set on a non-profit basis, remain adequate to sustain the scheme's obligations to all policyholders over time. In response to Ms He Ting Ru's question, I want to assure her that the information on the Fund, including the amount of claims and investment claims, is already publicly available in CPF Board's annual financial statements.
Third, on simplifying processes and improving access to financial support.
Before I elaborate further, let me just first clarify with Assoc Prof Jamus Lim that CareShield Life is administered by the CPF Board and not outsourced.
We fully acknowledge the challenges faced by caregivers. We are committed to improving the user journey for care recipients and caregivers and ensuring a citizen-centric experience that allows residents to get support in a timely manner, as Ms Mariam Jaafar has shared.
Since CareShield Life was launched, we have doubled the number of severe disability assessors island-wide from over 300 at launch to now more than 700 assessors. More GPs in the community, therapists and nurses are being trained, and every public hospital now has in-house assessors. We have also expanded the number of assessors who perform house calls to improve access and convenience for policyholders.
MOH and AIC will press on with efforts to expand our assessor pool. I would also like to assure Mr Yip Hon Weng as well as other Members that we will continue to ensure that assessors are rigorously trained to conduct fair and high quality assessments. These assessment outcomes are also subject to further clinical reviews, if necessary.
Sir, I agree with Members that we can make our financial support schemes more seamless. We now have nine AIC Link offices across the island. These serve as a one-stop resource to help connect care recipients and their caregivers to the support they need. Our Silver Generation Ambassadors also reach out to seniors to explain schemes in a clear and more personal manner.
As Mr Melvin Yong and a number of Members have noted, better awareness and insurance literacy can help families make more informed financial decisions. Community touchpoints also continue to remain an important source of help for seniors and caregivers to understand the suite of long-term care financial support schemes available. We will continue to work with AIC and community partners to reach out to families to increase awareness of the support available.
We agree with Ms Mariam Jaafar that we can make our scheme application process more claimant friendly. One way we have done so is by giving residents the opportunity to be automatically assessed across various disability schemes after having undergone a disability assessment. This reduces the administrative burden and ensures timely support for families. We will continue to identify areas for improvement and ensure the claims process remains efficient and responsive to policyholders' needs.
Mr Speaker, ageing is part of life's journey. While we cannot stop time, we can shape how we age. The Government is taking steps to empower Singaporeans to lead active, healthy and purposeful lives in their silver years through national initiatives such as Age Well SG.
Some of us may come to require more support for our ADLs. Our commitment to Singaporeans is that we will continue to develop our care ecosystem through more community care services and Age Well Neighbourhoods, to enable more to age-in-place confidently.
Financially, we have reviewed our support ecosystem to ensure that Singaporeans have access to affordable care through enhancements to long-term care subsidies and grants earlier this year. With the enhancements to CareShield Life, Singaporeans can be assured that these insurance payouts, too, will continue to provide meaningful support for long-term care, should they need it. The Council will continue to review the scheme to ensure that it remains relevant to policyholders.
This Bill supports these enhancements by strengthening the legislative framework to ensure that the scheme remains fair and sustainable through appropriate underwriting criteria and enhanced premium recovery mechanisms. These amendments will help ensure that CareShield Life continues to provide essential financial protection when families need it most, for current and future generations of Singaporeans. I thank Members for their support of this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek to move.
Mr Speaker: Are there clarifications from Members? Ms Jessica Tan.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo: Mr Speaker, I do have a clarification for the Senior Minister of State. He says that the AV is not relevant for retirees. I would say it is relevant with regard to CareShield Life premium because the assumption is that people only retire at 67. But that is the reemployment age and many of my residents had to have to retire before that and they are in their early 60s; because either of poor health, sometimes because of caregiving needs because some of their family members require it so they do have to retire slightly earlier.
And some, their jobs are disrupted and for someone older, especially a matured professional, it is usually harder to get a job at that age. And so, therefore, it is relevant, and they have no income and if they happen to live in a property that is just slightly above the threshold, they do not qualify. And it is not just for CareShield Life premium, but like I said, it is the same means-testing for across all the other long-term candidates so it sort of exacerbates the point. So, I hope the Senior Minister of State understand that it is still relevant.
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I thank Ms Jessica Tan for raising that concern. But let me just say that the biggest assurance from my speech today that the Member should take back is that, under whatever circumstances, if a Singapore Citizen cannot pay any part of the premiums needed, we will cover fully whatever is needed through the additional premium subsidies to make sure that no one is without coverage for CareShield Life. In the instance if there is any premium that is owed, we will not hold back the disbursement of support that is needed for this individual and talk about the recovery of the premiums that may take place at some point in time. But we will act with compassion and make sure that the person who needs the payout from CareShield Life will not have a lapse of payment from CareShield Life in any instance.
Mr Speaker: Ms Tan.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo: Thank you Mr Speaker for your indulgence. The Senior Minister of State, I hear him and I agree with him and I have his assurance on CareShield Life premium. I just hope that we look at it in a more holistic landscape. As the Senior Minister of State have said, long-term care is a larger framework and because the current support framework is based on that same criteria and therefore that is why I am harping on this point because it is a larger impact and I do see families, they are seniors themselves and they care for other seniors or families with disability and that little bit more support will make a big difference.
Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru: Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the response. I have a couple of clarifications for the Senior Minister of State. The first being while we acknowledge that women are at risk of longer-term disability and living more years in ill health and this I acknowledged in my speech. I think the point I was making is and this is why I raised the New South Wales study, which found that even though the level of disability in their case was about 50/50 between women and men, they found that women actually only made up for 37% of the claims and one of the reasons or the concerns raised there was that women were actually not, for whatever reason, not claiming as much.
So, I was just wondering whether we are facing similar challenges here in Singapore and whether the Senior Minister of State can share some data about the differentiation between the claims because biology, lifespan, health span all that is one thing. But, of course, what matters in the case of an insurance scheme is the actual claims and the actual data and who is actually claiming and for how long. I think it would be helpful for the House to understand this.
And the second point would be about, again, more on the gender-differentiated premiums. I just wanted to note that yes, we understand, at least I understand that the cohorts is by age cohort and I think the point that I was making was how can we work towards making each cohort gender neutral? And, in fact, this was a point that was raised in 2018 by the Leader of the Opposition when he actually stated, noting at the same time the then-health Government Parliamentary Committee Chair had also called for how we can move towards gender neutral premiums, and Mr Singh at that time also said that it would mean men will pay more and women less, let it be so.
Dr Koh Poh Koon: I thank Ms He for her two clarifications. On the first one, for claims data. I think this CareShield Life is barely about five years and as I said earlier, many of the policyholders today are still quite young and the claims data is, at this point, not mature enough for us to draw any robust conclusions. But the way we do it, on your second clarification, was the fact that we use principles from actuarial science to actually price the premium based on the gender differences in their biological behaviour over time. And the Council is prepared to relook at actual data over time and decide if further adjustments are needed. Whether it will move towards completely equal parity between men and women, I do not know. Maybe men will participate more in Healthier SG and become healthier, and they can live just as long. We might reach parity but only time will tell how the data will pan out.
Mr Speaker: Ms Mariam Jaafar.
Ms Mariam Jaafar: I thank the Senior Minister of State for his very comprehensive clarifications. I wanted to follow up on the reinstatement of the underwriting criteria for the Optional Cohort. As we know this cohort is senior, you know, most of them are now in their 50s and 60s and I take the Senior Minister of State's point that the enrolment has dropped to a trickle, but I am concerned that the people who perhaps have not enrolled by now may fall more in the lower-income brackets who did felt that they did not have, you know, enough savings for the premiums or did not have the financial literacy for it. And also, mild and undiagnosed conditions may be more common in those cohorts that are in the lower-income segments than others. So, it is a little bit of a concern to me that those are most likely to get screened out, and this applies to the Optional Cohort as well as the new Citizens.
So, three questions from me. First, what assurances does the Senior Minister of State have that the underwriting process will be fair, transparent and medical robust? In particular, the borderline cases for the mild conditions. Second, will there be clear appeals or a second opinion pathway so that one assessment does not mean that somebody is excluded for life. And third, this one I raised and I did not hear a response to it. Do we really have to take this all-or-nothing approach? Is there some way that you can consider some tiered or partial entry options for those who may have some mild disabilities and may be excluded under the underwriting criteria?
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I thank the Member for her concern regarding the Optional Cohort. But let me just give some context to this because the Optional Cohort is the older cohort that is actually a much smaller cohort, because the number of people in that age range would be lesser than those in the younger cohort. The Member can imagine that as they age, less and less of their peers will be around. Which means that the burden will be shared by a lesser number of people in terms of premiums that need to keep the funds for that cohort for claims sustainable. And that is why the premium will be higher and once we tighten the reins and reinstate the original underwriting criteria, as I mentioned in my speech earlier, the Optional Cohort who are still policyholders today will see a premium drop from next year onwards because they now do not have to pay higher premium to account for some of the peers who may suddenly join in with disability that may draw down on the claims. The Member understands the math behind it, yes?
So, I think in trying to help this Optional Cohort to be part of the CareShield Life we also have to consider what it means to the rest of them who are already in the same cohort who are CareShield Life policyholders. Is it fair to them as well? Because they are bearing a lot more premiums today in anticipation of someone who may choose to join much later on with disability. And that is what their cohort has been bearing for the last few years before we now make this move to tighten the underwriting criteria.
And we have actually extended the sign-in period from two years to four years to give ample time and double our outreach efforts as well to encourage those who may want to consider to come in to join the scheme before the end of this year, including availing up to $4,000 of premium subsidies to make it more as a reassurance that when they come in there will be premium subsidies to make it affordable for the Optional Cohort to join in.
So, given that the number who are signing up now has dropped down to a lower number, we think this is about time to tighten the underwriting to make sure it is fair to the other existing policyholders who are in the Optional Cohort that has already come in for the last few years.
So, I hope this is something that the Member can appreciate that, it is really striking the balance between wanting to help the remaining small number of people or to be fair to the rest of them who has already made the effort to come in and do the risk-pooling.
On the second case of whether there is an appeal mechanism. We take this on a case-by-case basis. But, in general, severe disability, especially permanent disability does not really change over time. That is why they are called permanent disability. And if the assessment is that this is a permanent disability, generally, the assessor would have to be quite certain that it is a particular condition that will see no chance of improvement over time and it is something that we have to strengthen in terms of the training we provide to the assessor so they can make a clear, unbiased assessment of the level of disability to qualify for the three ADLs threshold that we talked about here and I hope that is something that will help to allay the Member's concerns about this particular aspect.
Have I answered all the Member's three questions? I would say that will be a very difficult thing to construct because once you have a partial kind of system that is neither here nor there, not very clearcut, you would open things to gaming, to adverse selection and that will make the whole scheme unsustainable. So, and that is part of the reason why we are now tightening the underwriting and this is to respect the principles of making sure that it actually is sound and the underwriting is fair.
Mr Speaker: Dr Choo Pei Ling.
Dr Choo Pei Ling: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his elaboration. I have a few questions. As mentioned in my earlier speech, one of the Council's recommendations being considered is tele-assessments for claimants. May I clarify, when does the Ministry expect to conclude the feasibility study on this and how will the assessors guard against fraud and potential misdiagnosis? Separately, I would also like to seek clarification on whether the Ministry would be able to share any cases of appeal it had received in the years since CareShield Life started? And what were the percentages of successful and unsuccessful appeal cases?
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I thank Dr Choo for her two questions. On the second one on cases of appeal, I do not have data on hand right now, so if she wants to know more, perhaps, she will have to file a Parliamentary Question at some other Sitting.
On the tele-assessment, this is still very much a pilot at the moment, as Dr Choo would probably understand, assessing disability on the remote setting carries technical challenges. The assessor on the other end of the line will have to first make sure that it is safe for the person with disability to be assessed without the assessor's assistance. There could be a risk of falling, for example. And also, you make sure that it is not something that can be gamed.
So, there are some real challenges and so this pilot will help us to understand what are the challenges we need to overcome, what are the safeguards we need to put in to make sure it is fair, to make sure it is something that is robust, before we can think of rolling this out in a broader way.
So, I hope the Member will give us a bit more time to take a look at what are the outcomes that the pilot shows before we can think about how to broaden it to wider application.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Thank you, Speaker. Two follow-up questions from me. The first builds on the question by Ms He Ting Ru about gender-neutral data. I appreciate Senior Minister of State Koh's explanation that CareShield is a brief programme, but we have a predecessor programme, ElderShield. Although it is different, I wonder whether that longer history would afford us the ability to differentiate between the gender data that Ms He requested and if we do not have that on hand, perhaps if we should be filing a Parliamentary Question on this.
My second question also riffs off a clarification by Ms Mariam Jaafar about the all-or-nothing approach. I understand his clarification that we do not want to have a system where it is gamed. But one point that I raised in my speech was about an index approach, either Katz Index or modified Barthel Index would assign scores that differ according to whether it is moderate disability or severe disability, and then mapped those through an ultimate score. That kind of scoring approach is purely objective and may rule out the possibility of this kind of gaming of the system.
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I think the gender-related claims data, like I said, we do not have enough mature data to share, even if we looked at some of the ElderShield claims from before, because that is a different construct and at a different time point where not all the individuals may give us good data at the moment to project forward for CareShield Life. So, we can take a look and if there are data to share, we would do so maybe at a future Sitting.
On the scoring system, the crux of the issue is whether we want to allow those with moderate, maybe even mild, disability to be included and that means expanding the scope of coverage. Because if you are taking a graded approach, it means that you are trying to define those who are lesser than severe disability according to today's ADL definition, to be assessable for claims. That means broadening the coverage to a wider pool of people which must mean that the payouts must increase, which must mean that premium loading on existing cohorts must go up.
The CareShield Life Council did consider whether we should broaden from beyond severe disability to those with more moderate disability. But I think in the end, the Council took the approach that that would mean that there will be policy premium impacts on the rest of the policyholders and potentially make it less affordable to more Singaporeans. As I mentioned in my speech, the Council's decision is to take a balanced one where, as a basic level of protection for all Singaporeans, they want to make this affordable and more broad-based rather than opening up to a lot more claims and making it far more difficult for especially those in the lower income to be accessible.
And for those with milder disability, generally you can imagine that their care needs would be much lesser, in which case our approach of strengthening subsidies at the care delivery setting would make many of these care more affordable already and available to those in milder disabilities.
So, it is not just trying to solve the problem with one tool but looking at the multiple layers of support we have, by first of all, making the overall care cheaper through subsidies, through grants so that the need to even tap on CareShield Life for milder, maybe to moderate, disability will be much lesser as well.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Mr Speaker, I do not wish to belabour this point too much. But allow me to clarify that actually using an index approach, you do not necessarily need to expand the coverage to individuals purely facing mild disabilities.
I will give you an example. An individual reporting maximal assistance in three areas, let us say toileting, bathing and dressing, for instance but be able to fully perform all other functions – so this is someone that would fully qualify for CareShield Life – would score 80 points on the modified Barthel Index, which is actually a higher score that another individual who requires just moderate assistance in, for example, transferring mobility, dressing and feeding and yet be able to perform other functions independently.
So, my point is that when you use a scoring system, it is not necessarily the case that you immediately will expand to a much larger pool of individuals but actually just those individuals that truly need the assistance to disability.
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Thank you, Sir. I understand there are different assessment tools in the market in assessing disability but what we are choosing to use is something is widely adopted at the World Health Organization, in the European Union, widely used by insurers. It is also something that many of our clinicians and doctors are familiar with. I think it is something that we want to do, that it is aligned with international practice, that is also easy and convenient for our assessors and our clinicians to use, rather than put in different matrixes that actually ends up promulgating different tools and creating some confusion.
I think we both agree that we should try to make sure that the scheme is sustainable at this moment as far as CareShield Life is concerned, to limit the support to those with severe disability. Those at the margins, we will take a compassionate approach. If they require care that cannot be claimed through CareShield Life but for which they need further support, we have other means to help them to access that care as well. And that is ultimate thing: to make sure that regardless of the severity of your illnesses or disability, care is always accessible; and if need be, other forms of support can come in.
Mr Speaker: I do not see any more hands, so I assume all clarifications have been sought and addressed by Senior Minister of State Koh.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Koh Poh Koon]. (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":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed.\" – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad]. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 6.39 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans for Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme Voucher Beyond December 2025","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"17 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry plans to extend the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme Voucher scheme past December 2025; and (b) what factors will guide its decision on continuation or discontinuation.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS) (Open Market) Voucher is a temporary measure to support eligible families who rent Housing and Development Board flats or bedrooms on the open market, while HDB ramps up the PPHS supply to 4,000 units by the end of this year.
There are no plans to extend the Voucher as the ramp-up of PPHS supply is on track. In recent exercises, all married applicants with at least one child aged 18 or below, including those expecting a child, were offered the opportunity to select a PPHS flat.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Monitoring Safety and Maintenance of Road Conditions in Areas with Heavy Construction Activity","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"19 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) how does the Ministry monitor the safety and maintenance of road conditions in areas with heavy construction activity, such as in Woodlands; and (b) what measures are the Ministry considering to ensure timely but also durable and effective repairs.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Critical road defects, such as potholes, are fixed within a day. Beyond critical road defects, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has a comprehensive inspection and maintenance regime for our road network, including roads with heavy construction activities. Roads are inspected regularly using video analytics to detect road defects and determine the need for road resurfacing. LTA is also considering using cameras on public buses to detect road defects. In addition, LTA is working with the industry and Institutes of Higher Learning to research and potentially deploy more durable and sustainable road mixes to minimise road defects and the need for maintenance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Additional Primary Schools in Bishan East-Sin Ming Region","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will consider establishing additional primary schools within the Bishan East-Sin Ming region to address growing enrolment demands and minimise travel distances for students.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Ministry of Education (MOE) regularly reviews the demand and supply for school places at the national and local levels, taking into consideration planned housing developments and public transport networks in each residential area.
For the Bishan East-Sin Ming Division, we have assessed that there is sufficient supply of primary school places within one to two kilometres of the Division. The projected increase in demand due to the new housing developments is largely offset by the decreasing demand from the more mature parts of Bishan. Hence, there is currently no plan to build new primary schools there.
MOE is careful in our school planning to avoid an oversupply of school places, which could result in schools having many vacancies and a reduced ability to offer diverse programmes.
We will continue to monitor demand for school places to ensure sufficient places for school-going children as the profile of residents changes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Addressing Root Cause of Child's Aggressive Behaviour When Faced with Child's Uncooperative Family","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"23 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Minister for Education what specific measures will the Ministry implement to address the root cause of a child's aggressive behaviour in a bullying case when the child’s family is an unwilling partner in the intervention.
Mr Desmond Lee: This question has been addressed by written reply on 14 October 2025. Members may refer to the response to Question No 46 for oral answer in the 14 October Order Paper. [Please refer to \"Publishing Guidelines on Tackling Bullying in Schools\", Official Report, 14 October 2025, Vol 96, Issue 7, 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":"Proposed Simplified Fast-track Claims Process under Assistive Technology Fund for Low-cost Digital Aids","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the multi-stage process of the Assistive Technology Fund is fit-for-purpose for low-cost digital aids such as AirTags; (b) whether Ministry will introduce a simplified fast-track process for such items; and (c) whether the low subsidy uptake for affordable devices such as AirTags is evidence that the current system deters such applications.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Assistive Technology Fund (ATF) provides means-tested subsidies to persons with disabilities to purchase assistive devices for independent living.
ATF applicants are guided to first approach an ATF touchpoint, where an assessor who is a healthcare professional evaluates and prescribes suitable devices based on the applicant's circumstances. The assessor also guides the applicant on how to use the device appropriately. Thereafter, the assessor or a social worker will submit the ATF application to SG Enable on behalf of the client for the recommended device.
However, the ATF touchpoint may also decide that there is no need for an assessor to conduct a detailed assessment, if the applicant requires just basic devices. Although there have not been any ATF applications for tracking devices, there is a simplified process for basic devices in place.
The applications for ATF are assessed based on the applicant's circumstances, that is, whether the devices applied for directly supports the applicant in purposes of early intervention, education, employment, therapy, rehabilitation and/or independent living, regardless of the cost of the assistive devices.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Deployment of EV Chargers in HDB Car Parks and Requests for Additional Chargers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Mr David Hoe asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) what is the deployment status of EV chargers in HDB carparks in terms of carparks covered and points installed against the 60,000-by-2030 target; (b) what criteria and processes allow estates to request for additional chargers; and (c) whether deployments can be brought forward to within the same calendar year of the requests where demand and power capacity permit.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: There are more than 25,000 electric vehicle (EV) charging points island wide, of which more than 7,500 are installed across about 85% of Housing and Development Board car parks. We are on track to achieving our public commitment of every HDB resident having convenient access to an EV charger by the end of this year. We are also on track to achieve our earlier target of deploying 60,000 charging points by 2030.
The Land Transport Authority is monitoring charger utilisation rates. We will continue to keep up with the latest technology, and work with the community and EV charging operators to scale up deployment of EV chargers in carparks with high charging demand, electrical capacity permitting. EV drivers can look forward to more charging points across the island over the coming years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Distinguishing between Malay and Indian Muslim Food Providers in Bidding Criteria for HDB Rental Coffee Shops","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the bidding criteria for HDB rental coffee shops requiring one halal stall distinguish between Malay and Indian Muslim food providers; and (b) whether the Price-Quality Method (PQM) framework may be refined to place greater weight on Malay/Muslim food providers, given the relatively greater proportion of Malays to Indian Muslims in the population.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Since 2005, for all new or vacant Housing and Development Board (HDB) rental coffee shops, operators are required to provide at least one halal stall. This ensures that residents have convenient access to halal food, and that HDB coffee shops remain inclusive social spaces that cater to residents of all ethnicities. Should any halal stallholder cease operations, HDB requires the coffee shop operator to find a replacement within the tenancy period.
The requirement to provide at least one halal stall does not distinguish between the type of cuisine served. We have a variety of halal cuisines in our HDB heartlands, including Malay, Indian, Chinese, Western and Japanese. The coffee shop operators or stallholders can decide on the type of cuisine they wish to serve, so as to best meet local demand.
In Sengkang town, there are 19 HDB rental coffee shops. Two of these are fully halal coffee shops where all of their stalls provide halal options. Another 14 are coffee shops with halal stalls providing a variety of options, eight Indian-Muslim stalls, five Malay/Muslim stalls, and three Western Halal stalls. The remaining three halal stalls ceased operations this year. HDB is working with the operators to ensure that replacements are found as soon as possible.
Apart from HDB coffee shops, residents are also served by halal food options in nearby hawker centres, food courts and shopping malls.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Activation Triggers when Minors are Reported Missing or at Risk of Self-harm","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what are the activation triggers and response timelines for Police and relevant frontline agencies when minors are reported missing or at risk of self-harm; (b) how is technology used to bring them to safety while safeguarding the privacy of the minors and others; and (c) what is the coverage of trauma-informed and suicide-intervention training for frontline officers.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Police follow up when vulnerable persons, which include young children, are reported missing or at risk of self-harm, and aim to arrive at the incident location within 15 minutes of the report. Other agencies, such as the Singapore Civil Defence Force, could also be activated to provide medical and operational assistance.
On the Member's question on the use of technology, when Police receive reports on missing persons, for example, they will review relevant closed-circuit television footages where they are available. Where the Police are able to identify a likely location, they may also deploy other resources for the search, including drones. In cases where the family provides consent to release the details of the missing person, the Police may issue appeals for information online to seek the public's assistance.
Our frontline Police Officers are trained to handle incidents involving attempted suicide and persons experiencing trauma. Among others, the training covers trauma-informed interaction to build trust and safety, which is crucial when dealing with vulnerable persons.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Coastal Protection Studies on North and Western Part of Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) for an update on the coastal protection studies being carried out on the north and western part of Singapore, including Jurong Island, to mitigate sea level rise; and (b) the expected timelines for the (i) completion of the studies and the development of plans and (ii) commencement of works pursuant to the studies.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The two site-specific studies for the north-west coast, covering our coastal reservoirs and our shoreline from Lim Chu Kang to Woodlands, are currently underway and are due to be completed by 2026. The site-specific study for the south-west coast, which will dovetail with the ongoing study for Jurong Island, will commence in 2026. Both studies are targeted for completion by 2030. The studies for the North and North-east coast, from Pasir Ris to Sembawang, will be conducted later.
The Public Utilities Board and the relevant public agencies will carry out preliminary and detailed designs of the recommended measures following the completion of site-specific studies. Construction of measures is expected to commence in the 2030s.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Resident and Non-resident Workers Performing Shift Work","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Manpower for the past three years (a) what proportion of resident workers and non-resident workers respectively are performing shift work; (b) which are the top five sectors where shift work is performed; and (c) for these top five sectors, what is the average number of (i) daily rest hours; and (ii) rest hours in between shifts, respectively.
Dr Tan See Leng: The overall proportion of full-time employees on shift work arrangements was 9.4% in 2022 and 6.5% in 2024. Data for 2023 is not available as it is collected biennially. Data by residency and on rest hours during and between shifts are not available.
The top five sectors with the highest proportion of full-time employees on shift work, based on 2024 data, were (a) accommodation, (b) petroleum, chemical and pharmaceutical products, (c) electronic, computer and optical products, (d) air transport and supporting services, and (e) security and investigation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Survey on Reasons for Singaporeans and Permanent Residents to Hire Migrant Domestic Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry has done surveys on the reasons for which Singaporeans and permanent residents hire foreign domestic workers; (b) what are the Ministry’s projections, if any, on future demand for foreign domestic workers; and (c) whether the Ministry can release any such survey findings and projections.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) commissions surveys on Migrant Domestic Workers (MDWs) and their employers periodically. The last survey was done in 2021. The survey findings, including reasons why employers hire MDWs, can be found on MOM's website. Generally speaking, there has been an increasing demand for MDWs to care for seniors given our ageing population. The Government will continue to monitor our population trends and review our policies and plans accordingly, to cater to the evolving needs of Singapore households.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Public Education Efforts on Risks, Costs and Benefits of Using Stablecoins","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Government will roll out public education efforts to inform Singaporeans of the risks, costs, and benefits of using stablecoins such as Singapore Dollar stablecoin (XSGD); (b) whether the widespread adoption of SGD-backed stablecoins can affect the conduct of Singapore’s monetary policy or currency stability; and (c) whether the Government has evaluated such impacts.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): MoneySense, which is the national financial education programme, has provided regular information to the public about the risks of crypto-assets that have no inherent and fundamental value. Financial institutions in Singapore are not allowed to promote such products to the general public. Stablecoins are a form of crypto-assets that are supposed to maintain a stable value relative to a fixed reference asset, such as the US Dollar or Singapore Dollar (SGD). Stablecoins may be used for payments, and some payments services companies have started introducing the use of stablecoins for retail payments. MoneySense will educate consumers on how stablecoins operate, the risks associated with these products and how to differentiate between unregulated stablecoins and regulated stablecoins.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) is preparing legislation for a stablecoins regulatory framework. When implemented, this framework will differentiate MAS-regulated stablecoins, which are backed by high quality reserves, from other crypto-assets, including unregulated stablecoins, which may have no fundamental value or may not be backed by adequate reserves.
Well-regulated stablecoins can play a role in making cross-border payments more efficient. They can also be used in wholesale settlement of tokenised forms of financial assets. There is growing interest by financial institutions to provide multi-currency payment and cash management solutions to corporate customers using stablecoins and tokenised deposits.
Consumers should exercise care when dealing with stablecoins, especially unregulated ones. Stablecoins in general are not as safe as bank deposits in Singapore, as bank deposits are tightly regulated and protected by deposit insurance.
Our current assessment is that the growing use of SGD stablecoins is unlikely to affect currency stability or the conduct of monetary policy. First, the issuance of each SGD-stablecoin would have to be fully backed by SGD cash or high-quality liquid SGD denominated assets. This means there is no new net SGD creation as a direct effect of stablecoins issuance, and hence no impact on domestic monetary stability. Second, the value of SGD stablecoins backed by SGD assets is very small. MAS will monitor developments, but we expect demand internationally to be predominantly for stablecoins pegged to key global reserve currencies.
MAS will continue to closely monitor the growth of SGD stablecoins and stablecoin developments around the world. We advise the public to be cautious about crypto-assets and stablecoins, as these are generally not suitable for retail investors to hold savings and wealth. Larger value savings and investments should be held with licensed banks and regulated investment products.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Broadening Scope of Sovereign Green Bond Issuances Beyond Financing Nationally Significant Infrastructure","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Government plans to broaden the scope of Singapore’s sovereign green bond issuances beyond financing nationally significant infrastructure such as the Cross Island Line and Jurong Region Line to include other categories of projects in line with the updated Singapore Green Bond Framework and the Singapore-Asia Taxonomy for Sustainable Finance.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Government does not borrow to spend, except for major, long-term infrastructure under the Significant Infrastructure Government Loan Act (SINGA). Any sovereign green bond issuances have to comply with both the Singapore Green Bond Framework and the legislation under SINGA.
The Jurong Region Line and Cross Island Line, which are being financed via our sovereign green bonds, meet both of these criteria. At this point, we do not have any plans for our sovereign green bond issuances to be used for more categories of projects.
Besides sovereign green bonds, the Framework also serves as a reference for our Statutory Boards' respective green bond frameworks. To date, the Housing and Development Board, the National Environment Agency and the Public Utilities Board have issued green bonds to finance green buildings, sustainable waste management and sustainable water and wastewater management respectively.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans for Temporary Facilities Built for World Aquatics Championship 2025","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth following the hosting of the World Aquatics Championships 2025 (a) what are the plans for the temporary facilities; and (b) whether they will be extended for other uses.
Mr David Neo: The World Aquatics Championships Arena (WCH Arena) received positive feedback from international and local spectators, athletes and officials. Following the completion of a feasibility study, we are pleased to announce that the use of the WCH Arena will be extended until 2030.
The WCH Arena will complement existing ActiveSG swimming facilities and be open for public use and national team training. This means Singaporeans will be able to swim in the same pool where top international and TeamSG aquatics athletes, such as Katie Ledecky and Gan Chin Hwee, competed in. The WCH Arena could also be used to host future aquatics events, such as the Southeast Asian Games and ASEAN Para Games in 2029.
Public can look forward to using the WCH Arena by end October. More details will be shared in the coming weeks.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Uptake of ComLink+ among Lower-income Families Not Living in Public Rental Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what is the current uptake of ComLink+ among lower-income families not living in public rental flats.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: As of end-September 2025, the Ministry of Social and Family Development is providing ComLink+ support to about 1,000 families not staying in public rental flats. Over the next two years, we aim to support approximately 2,000 more such families.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Dialogue Sessions and Workshops for Students, Youths and Businesses to Improve Foreign Policy Understanding","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the past year (a) how many dialogue sessions and workshops have been conducted for students, youths and businesses to help them understand Singapore's foreign policy; (b) what was the total attendance for each group; (c) how is the effectiveness of these efforts measured beyond attendance numbers; and (d) what other modes of engagement has the Ministry employed or have plans to employ.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: The Government has stepped up public engagement to explain our foreign policy fundamentals and approaches and to hear Singaporeans' views. Since January 2024, we have conducted about 150 dialogue sessions and workshops with students, youths and businesses. Attendance for each session ranges from approximately 20 to 1,000 participants depending on the engagement format.
We collect feedback from participants at these engagements to better understand the clarity of the messages and effectiveness of the format. We aim to continuously improve on the content and delivery of the dialogues and engagements. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has also been providing more content digitally on social media accounts to reach a wider audience. We are also exploring more interactive small group workshops to allow for deeper discussions with the participants.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Common Complaints on Disamenities Caused by Foreign-registered Vehicles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Acting Minister for Transport with regard to foreign-registered vehicles (a) what are the most common types of complaints and feedback received about disamenities in recent years; and (b) what enforcement and deterrent measures are in place to address issues such as noise, illegal waiting in non-designated areas and occupation of residential parking spaces, particularly by delivery trucks and motorcycles.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The most common feedback received on disamenities caused by foreign vehicles is on illegal parking and pollutive emissions.
The Land Transport Authority, the National Environment Agency and the Traffic Police conduct regular joint enforcement operations along our roads. For example, drivers of vehicles that fail emissions test will be given a composition sum on the spot. The same enforcement and deterrence measures for illegal parking are imposed on all vehicles, regardless of whether they are local or foreign-registered.
Members of the public who have feedback on foreign vehicles on the road are encouraged to reach out to the relevant agencies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Fiscal Prudence of Offsetting Grants for Enterprises and Impact of G7 Proposal to Exempt US-parented Groups from Global Minimum Tax Rules","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Ministry has assessed the fiscal prudence of offsetting grants such as Refundable Investment Credit as recipient multinational enterprises may subsequently relocate jobs citing high costs; and (b) if not, whether the Government will repeal or suspend BEPS 2.0 Pillar Two if major jurisdictions like the US and China abstain from joining the framework, to avoid competitiveness and tax-base erosion.
39 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether statements made by the G7 in June 2025 to propose a \"side-by-side\" solution to exempt US-parented groups from global minimum tax rules are likely to have implications on Singapore's future budgets; and (b) if so, what are these implications.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: On Mr Kenneth Tiong's question on grants, all incentives offered by our economic agencies, including the Refundable Investment Credit, are subject to terms and conditions. Companies that receive Government support must make significant investments in Singapore and meet key outcomes, such as job creation and local employment, business spending or fixed asset investment. The level of support and conditions vary depending on the nature of the project and incentive. Should a company fail to meet the imposed conditions, the Government has mechanisms to terminate the incentive and claw back the grants provided.
Our competitive strengths go beyond the financial incentives we provide. Singapore has built up a strong reputation as a global business hub, underpinned by our stable political environment, strong rule of law, deep pool of talent, excellent infrastructure and connectivity with the world. These attributes also enable us to compete on the basis of value and not simply on cost.
On Base Erosion and Profit Shifting 2.0 Pillar Two, Singapore implemented the Domestic Top-up Tax and the Multinational Enterprise Top-up Tax from 1 January 2025. This was to avoid ceding revenues to other jurisdictions under the Pillar Two rules.
In June 2025, the G7 released a statement on how the Pillar Two rules may co-exist \"side-by-side\" with the United States tax system. Discussions on the details of such a framework are ongoing. It is still unclear at the moment what the eventual outcome will be, and how other jurisdictions and multinational enterprises will respond. Hence, the impact on our fiscal outlook is uncertain. We are monitoring the issue closely and will review our approach once there is greater clarity.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Aligning Commercial Interests of Insurance Companies with Needs of Doctors and Patients","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health whether the Ministry will look into better aligning the commercial interests of insurance companies with the needs of doctors and patients, particularly in the prescription of experimental treatments for chronic diseases, such that patients who are insured do not have to fear being out of pocket and doctors do not have to worry about not being paid.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Experimental treatments, by definition, have not been assessed rigorously for safety, clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness. Therefore, it is not appropriate to fund such treatments under the mainstream financing or insurance schemes. Instead, they are typically supported through research grants and extended to selected patients.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Block-wide Fire Alarms to Provide Early Warning for Fires in HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs whether the Ministry will reconsider HDB block-wide fire alarms to provide earlier warning, especially to less mobile seniors, given HDB fires where evacuations have been required despite flats being designed to contain fire and given that Household Fire Alarm Devices (HFADs) do not adequately warn the rest of the block to evacuate.
Mr K Shanmugam: We have focused on providing early warning of a fire to the occupants of individual flats via the installation of individual home fire alarm devices (HFADs). We do not see a need for block-wide central fire alarm systems for two reasons:
First, a block-wide evacuation is seldom required. When responding to a high-rise residential fire, the Singapore Civil Defence Force typically only evacuates occupants on the floor affected by the fire, as well as those residing in the two floors above. This is because HDB blocks are designed such that each HDB flat is a fire compartment, to reduce the spread of fire.
Second, common activities such as cooking or fogging could trigger a central fire alarm system. Over time, this may drive unintended but dangerous behaviours among the residents, such as disconnecting the HFAD from the central fire alarm system, or having them removed altogether, or even disregarding the alarms.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Higher Citizenships and Permanent Residencies Granted Last Year","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what is the reason for the higher number of new citizenships and permanent residencies granted last year as compared to the average over the last five years; and (b) whether this increase is indicative of a sustained upward trend in new citizenships and permanent residencies granted.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): We take in a carefully controlled number of new Permanent Residents (PRs) and Citizens each year. The exact number of new PRs and Citizenships granted each year depends on several factors, including the number and quality of applications we receive, and our changing needs. For example, in recent years, we have granted PRs to healthcare workers to support our growing healthcare needs. We also granted a higher number of citizenships in line with the stronger applicant pool, based on factors such as assimilability, contributions and links to Singapore, such as having Singaporean family members.
Our immigration policy is also reviewed regularly to account for changes to demographic trends. For instance, if our total fertility rate declines further or other demographic trends shift significantly, we will have to review and adjust our intake accordingly.
Regardless, we will continue to maintain a measured pace of immigration and be careful to grant PR or Citizenship to those who can contribute, integrate well and are committed to sinking their roots here, so that Singapore remains a cohesive society and a good home for all Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Implementation of Segregated Waste Collection","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether (a) the Ministry has plans to implement segregated waste collection; and (b) NEA will consider licensing more Public Waste Collectors beyond the current three companies.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Government has been progressively implementing segregated waste collection, starting with e-waste in 2021, and food waste generated from new large industrial and commercial buildings in 2024. In 2026, we will extend segregated collection to beverage containers. We will continue to review and implement segregated waste collection where appropriate to complement our National Recycling Programme.
Public Waste Collectors (PWCs) are appointed by the National Environment Agency through open tenders for each of the six geographical sectors in Singapore. Participation in these tenders is open to all companies that fulfil the experience and capacity requirements, and the successful tenderers are selected based on merit. We do not limit the number of PWCs to three.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Enhance Housing Mobility for Seniors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Minister for National Development what further steps are being taken to enhance housing mobility for seniors, including plans for more Community Care Apartments and facilitating downsizing or flat-exchange for elderly households.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) will continue to provide a range of housing options for our seniors, which enable them to have a home for life. This includes Community Care Apartments (CCA) that integrate senior-friendly design features with care services. We have launched five CCA projects since 2021, including a new project in Sengkang in the October 2025 Build-To-Order (BTO) exercise, and will launch another CCA in Toa Payoh next year. The recently announced Age Well Neighbourhoods is another step towards helping our seniors age in the community.
Short-lease 2-room flexi flats are also popular with our seniors. In each BTO project, we set aside for seniors at least 40% of the 2-room flexi flats. Seniors who had previously bought two subsidised flats are still eligible for the short-lease 2-room flexi flat or CCA if they had not purchased one previously.
Our efforts to improve housing mobility for seniors include the enhancements to the Silver Housing Bonus (SHB) for eligible seniors right-sizing to a 3-room or smaller flat. From 1 December 2025: (a) HDB will provide an additional $10,000 cash bonus to seniors who right-size to 2-room flats or CCAs, raising the maximum bonus from $30,000 to $40,000; (b) the SHB will be extended to more seniors living in private residential properties, with annual values between $21,000 and $31,000; (c) in addition, seniors will qualify for the SHB as long as they commit to a net increase in their Central Provident Fund (CPF) Retirement Account after right-sizing. As this amount can come from their CPF housing refunds, seniors may no longer need to make a cash top-up to their CPF Retirement Account to qualify for the SHB.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulating Businesses Providing Will and Probate Courses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Law (a) whether the Ministry is aware of businesses providing Will and Probate courses; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider regulating such businesses for the protection of the public and reputation of the legal profession.\n \n
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The provision of wills and probate courses is not restricted to the legal profession.
However, members of the public are reminded that, unless conducted by an advocate and solicitor, businesses which provide courses on wills, probate and estate planning cannot give legal advice and cannot provide the services of an advocate and solicitor. Any unauthorised person, who holds himself out as an advocate and solicitor, is potentially liable for a criminal offence under the Legal Profession Act.
Members of the public should therefore research the background of the course provider before they sign up for a will and probate course, to ensure that they are satisfied as to the background and quality of the course provider. A person who has doubts about legal issues or who requires legal advice should engage an advocate and solicitor.
To assist Singaporeans with making a will, information about legacy planning can be found on the Government's My Legacy @ LifeSG website1.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : The website is: https://mylegacy.life.gov.sg."],"footNoteQuestions":["47"],"questionNo":"47"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale for Minimum Eligibility Criterion of At Least One Local Employee for Energy Efficiency Grant","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the rationale for imposing a minimum eligibility criterion of at least one local employee at the firm-level for the Energy Efficiency Grant; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider tightening this eligibility criterion.
49 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry for an update on (a) the take up rate for the Energy Efficiency Grant (EEG); and (b) what are the total energy savings to date arising from the deployment of energy efficient equipment as a result of the EEG.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Energy Efficiency Grant (EEG) was introduced in September 2022. Since then, close to 15,800 applications have been approved as of August 2025.
There are two tiers of support to the EEG.
For the EEG Base Tier, companies can choose from a list of pre-approved equipment that have been assessed to be energy efficient. This list is reviewed regularly to incorporate new technologies that can meet the energy efficiency criteria. As we do not require companies to submit their energy savings data, we do not have the requested data for the EEG Base Tier. This approach strikes a balance between simplifying and streamlining the EEG application process, while ensuring that companies are using energy efficient equipment.
For the EEG Advanced Tier, which offers a higher quantum of support, eligible firms would have to demonstrate energy savings above 350 tonnes of lifetime carbon abatement, as endorsed by a whitelisted third-party assessor. Based on the applications approved thus far, we project an estimated 10,700 tonnes of carbon abatement across the lifetime of the approved equipment.
Since June 2025, companies no longer have to meet the minimum eligibility criterion of at least one local employee at the firm-level to qualify for the EEG. This criterion was previously included to ensure that EEG would benefit companies with legitimate operations in Singapore. However, this had inadvertently restricted companies such as sole proprietors in the food and beverage sector with no employees, from accessing the EEG. Instead, agencies administering the EEG have put in place safeguards such as post-disbursement audits, to ensure that the EEG is channelled correctly to eligible companies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics for Number of and Projected Bed Spaces at Commercial Dormitories","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the current number of commercial dormitory beds at workers' dormitories and the projected number of beds in each year over the next three years; and (b) whether the Government can consider increasing the supply of dormitory beds through industrial land sales or industrial property conversion given the current high occupancy and rental rates.
Dr Tan See Leng: Today, there are around 250,000 commercial dormitory beds. The Government projects a net increase of around 27,000 beds in commercial dormitories over the next few years. This includes the two Government-owned purpose-built dormitories (PBDs) in Jalan Tukang and Sengkang West, which are expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2026 and mid-2028 respectively.
The Government works closely with the dormitory industry to increase the supply of dormitory beds. Besides adding new PBDs to the market, we have also extended the leases of expiring dormitories where feasible and allowed existing PBDs to add more beds whilst meeting prevailing dormitory housing standards. Within industrial estates, we have facilitated applications for new Factory-Converted Dormitories and increased the allowable gross floor area of industrial developments for dormitory use from 40% to 49%.
As a further measure to increase the supply of beds, the Government encourages and facilitates employers, especially those in the Construction sector, to set up Construction Temporary Quarters (CTQs) or Temporary Occupation Licence Quarters (TOLQs) to meet their workers' accommodation needs. Public sector agencies have taken the lead in this to work with their contractors to house their workers in CTQs and TOLQs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Stepping Up Regulation and Supervision of Cord Blood Bank Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Ms Hany Soh asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health whether the Ministry assesses there to be a need for greater regulation and supervision of cord blood bank services in view of the risk of irreversible damage in the event of lapses.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Healthcare Services (Cord Blood Banking Service) regulations 2021 are set in line with international standards and aimed at assuring quality and safety of the cord blood units stored and suitability for transplant purposes. Under this regulatory framework, the Ministry of Health (MOH) conduct regular audits and inspections to ensure compliance with requirements for collection, handling, processing, storage and distribution of cord blood, and any areas of concern or suspected lapses will be investigated. In this case, Cordlife fell short of the standards, and its lapses were quickly surfaced and actions taken. It was how the regulatory framework was meant to work.
Cord blood banking is an elective, commercial service provided by the private sector. Contractual matters relating to storage and retrieval or compensation are private commercial arrangements between cord blood banks and their clients, outside of MOH's purview. MOH will continue to work closely with Cordlife to address their lapses and enhance their quality management system.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Risks Posed by Generative AI Models to Mental Health and Safety of Children and Youths","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Ministry has assessed the risks posed by generative AI models to mental health and safety of children and youths in Singapore; and (b) what safeguarding measures, for example, mandatory crisis-intervention protocols, age verification, parental controls, are being considered or implemented to protect youths from harmful AI interactions.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Agencies across Government are assessing the prevalence and impact of generative artificial intelligence (gen AI) on our children and youths. Meanwhile, there are already some measures in place to protect younger users online. Under our Codes of Practice for Online Safety, designated app stores must implement age assurance measures by 31 March 2026 to reduce the risk of under-18 users being able to access and download age-inappropriate apps. Existing frameworks, such as the Model AI Governance Framework for Generative AI, which fosters responsible development and use of AI, apply to online safety for youths and children.
The Government complements regulations with education and resources to equip young users and parents to use technology, including gen AI, safely and responsibly. In schools, Cyber Wellness and Mental Health Education lessons are taught as part of the Ministry of Education's (MOE's) Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) curriculum. Through the lessons, students learn to be safe, respectful and responsible online users, and to take care of their mental well-being. The Infocomm Media Development Authority's Digital Skills for Life framework now includes content on how to use gen AI and manage its potential risks. In addition, parents, children and youths may refer to the recently released Positive Use Guide on Technology and Social Media for practical tips on building healthy and balanced relationships with technology.
We will continue to work with stakeholders to create safer online spaces, so that every Singaporean is empowered to thrive safely in the digital age.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Stricter Enforcement of Vehicle Loan Regulations to Prevent 100% Financing Packages","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Acting Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will review and more strictly enforce motor vehicle loan regulations to curb practices of some car dealers offering 100% motor vehicle financing packages which circumvent existing MAS loan rules.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Motor vehicle loans granted by financial institutions must abide by the Monetary Authority of Singapore's (MAS') motor vehicle financing restrictions. Under these restrictions, the maximum loan-to-value limit is based on the vehicle's Open Market Value (OMV), with those above $20,000 OMV capped at 60% and those below or equal to $20,000 capped at 70%.
However, alternative financing arrangements extended by car dealers are not regulated by MAS. These include leasing arrangements or lease-to-own schemes that are not structured as hire-purchase arrangements. Buyers are strongly advised to obtain loans through regulated arrangements instead of unregulated ones, as they will have no protection if there are problems with the loan arrangements.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safeguards to Prevent Nursing and Lactation Rooms Misuse","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for National Development whether the Building and Construction Authority will consider implementing greater protection against the misuse of nursing and lactation rooms under the Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment, including the imposition of penalties.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Building and Construction Authority's (BCA's) Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment sets out the minimum design requirements for accessible and inclusive buildings.
Usage of these accessible features, including nursing and lactation rooms, is managed by building owners and facility managers. In this regard, they may implement various measures, such as installing access controls and conducting regular monitoring, to ensure the facilities are not misused.
We encourage all users of such facilities to be civic-minded. Building owners are also encouraged to provide clear signage to inform users of the proper usage of these facilities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Oversight of Issues Related To Payment and Incentive Schemes between Platform Operators and Platform Worker Associations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"55 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how does the Ministry intend to oversee the development of industry-wide principles for issues related to payment and/or incentive schemes between Platform Operators and Platform Worker Associations; and (b) when will these principles be made public.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Platform Workers Trilateral Group agreed that platform work associations and platform operators are best placed to discuss and address issues related to payment and incentive schemes on a bilateral basis. As each platform operator has a unique business model with its own payment and incentive schemes, bilateral discussions allow both parties to raise platform-specific issues that are most relevant to the platform workers concerned. This approach builds on the formalisation of platform work associations' representation of platform workers under the Platform Workers Act.
To guide platform work associations and platform operators in their bilateral discussions, the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), platform work associations and major platform operators have agreed on a set of industry-wide principles related to payment and incentive schemes. The three principles, which cover fair earnings, visibility on structural changes to incentive schemes and reasonable incentive structures were announced by NTUC on 11 September 2025.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Standard Procedures for Teachers when Questioning Students about Serious Disciplinary Incidents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Education (a) what are the current standard procedures for teachers when students are questioned about serious disciplinary incidents such as alleged theft; and (b) whether there will be a mandatory protocol requiring a parent or guardian to be present during such questioning to protect a child from being mentally intimidated to the point of becoming suicidal.
Mr Desmond Lee: Schools have established procedures to ensure student well-being during disciplinary investigations. These include conducting interviews in safe and private spaces with familiar staff members, such as their Form Teachers or Year Heads, and monitoring students for signs of distress. For students who are visibly distressed, school counsellors will provide social-emotional support and parents will also be informed.
Current protocols do not require parental presence during school-based disciplinary investigations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing Penalties and Powers for Seizure of Unauthorised Possession of Equipment Designed to Mix Controlled Substances into Vapes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs whether the Ministry will review and increase penalties and powers of seizure for the unauthorised possession or manufacture of equipment, including tools like 3D printers, specifically designed or adapted for the illegal mixing of controlled substances into vapes, even if the tools themselves are free of controlled substances.
Mr K Shanmugam: Under section 10A of the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA), it is an offence to manufacture, supply, possess, import or export any equipment to be used to manufacture a controlled drug. Offenders can face imprisonment for up to 20 years or a fine of up to $200,000 or both. This is regardless of how the equipment is designed or how the controlled drugs are mixed.
Under section 24 of the MDA, Central Narcotics Bureau officers are empowered to seize any item, including equipment and tools, that are used to commit an MDA offence, or if they contain or constitute evidence of such an offence.
We assess that there is no need to review the penalties or powers of seizure, for now.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans for Attracting Younger Stallholders to Ensure Viability of Wet Market Operations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in view of the increasingly older age of wet market stallholders, what measures are in place to attract younger stallholders to succeed retiring stallholders and ensure the continued viability of wet market operations.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Over the years, stall patronage at wet markets has declined. Changing demographics have led to fewer Singaporeans shopping at wet markets, with more shopping at supermarkets and online. The continued viability of wet markets ultimately depends on whether there is adequate consumer demand rather than just the availability of younger stallholders.
59 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry oversees operational performance standards for school bus operators; (b) if so, what are the standards; and (c) what are the price and non-price factors that are being determined in the awarding of school bus operators by schools, including special education schools.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Ministry of Education (MOE) sets the performance requirements for school bus operators serving mainstream schools. These requirements cover safety protocols, service reliability and overall service quality standards. Individual schools work closely with their appointed bus operators to ensure that these standards are met. The social service agencies work with the special education (SPED) schools to establish standards for school bus operators serving SPED schools, while ensuring the performance requirements can meet the specific transportation needs of students attending SPED schools. All bus operators must also comply with statutory and regulatory requirements, including those mandated by the Land Transport Authority.
Both mainstream and SPED schools select bus operators through a competitive bidding process and award contracts to the operators that best meet their needs. The competitiveness of bus fares is one of the key evaluation factors considered by schools. Other non-price factors include operators' good track records, fleet capacity and ability to serve different residential areas.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Underlying Causes of Death by Suicide among Adults Aged 30 to 39","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"60 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health what steps are being taken to study the underlying causes of deaths by suicide among adults aged 30 to 39 and to address this issue, given that this age group recorded the highest increase in 2024.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Suicide is multi-factorial and usually not attributable to any single cause.
The Institute of Mental Health recently completed and released a study on suicide in September, which identified risk and protective factors as well as warning signs that families and friends can look out for. This enables timely support for at-risk individuals and can potentially prevent suicides.
For all age groups, the best interventions include building mental resilience, spotting early risk indicators, encouraging timely help-seeking and supporting individuals in crisis. The Ministry of Health will continue to work with relevant agencies on improving suicide prevention measures.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Collisions between Cyclists and Pedestrians on Cycling Paths Adjacent to Pedestrian-only Paths","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) how many collisions between cyclists and pedestrians on cycling paths which are adjacent to pedestrian-only paths have occurred since 1 July 2025; (b) why are pedestrians not legally prohibited from such cycling paths; and (c) whether the Ministry will introduce such a prohibition to better protect pedestrians from accidents with cyclists.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: According to the Singapore Police Force, 20 accidents involving active mobility device users and pedestrians were reported between 1 July 2025 and 31 August 2025. We do not track the number of collisions occurring specifically on cycling paths adjacent to pedestrian-only paths (POPs). There are other incidents that are not reported and are typically resolved between affected parties.
Under the Code of Conduct for Active Mobility, users are advised to keep to their own paths. The conversion of footpaths, next to cycling paths, to POPs is intended to improve safety for pedestrians who do not need to share the path with faster moving cyclists and personal mobility device users. We do not legally prohibit pedestrians from using cycling paths to afford pedestrians, who make up the largest group of path users, the flexibility of also walking on the cycling paths when safe to do so. Instead, our approach is to clearly demarcate the paths and focus on strengthening user etiquette and compliance through education and outreach efforts. Enforcement officers on the ground will also educate pedestrians who are seen to be on cycling paths to keep to the POPs for their own safety.
The Land Transport Authority will continue to partner the community and schools to raise awareness on safe path use.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Owners Opting to Sell Flat's Lease under HDB Lease Buyback Scheme and Whether Their Flats Will be Offered VERS","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"62 Mr Foo Cexiang asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the number of HDB flat owners who opted to sell their flat's lease under the Lease Buyback Scheme for the period January to June 2025; and (b) whether these flat owners' HDB flats will still be eligible for the Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme (VERS) in the future whilst these flat owners still reside there.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: From January to June 2025, 1,170 senior households have joined the Lease Buyback Scheme (LBS). The scheme is designed to help seniors unlock the value of their homes by selling a portion of their flat's remaining lease to the Government while continuing to live in their flats. The proceeds are used to top up their Central Provident Fund (CPF) Retirement Accounts, and seniors receive a lifetime stream of monthly payouts via CPF LIFE to support their retirement needs.
Seniors who would like to supplement their retirement incomes should continue to consider LBS as a possible option, without worrying about whether their block will go through \tthe Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme (VERS).
If a senior joins LBS and his block subsequently goes through VERS, the Government will ensure that he receives a fair package, which takes into account the value of the remaining retained lease of his flat.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expansion Plans for Sengkang Public Library","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"63 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether there are plans to expand the size of the Sengkang Public Library in light of the planned integrated community hub; and (b) whether there are plans for another interim expansion following the one in 2017, given the ongoing demand for library services from the town’s demographic profile.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Under the Libraries of the Future Masterplan (LOTF), the National Library Board (NLB) ensures that branch libraries, like Sengkang Library, are supported by larger regional libraries which serve a wider region and offer more services and collections. During its last revamp in 2017, Sengkang Library was already expanded by 18%. Since then, NLB has also opened Punggol Library at the One Punggol integrated hub. NLB will continuously review and ensure that library collections and services meet the needs of the communities they serve.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Imposing Accountability on Social Media Platforms to Prevent Impersonation Scams","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what further steps will the Government take to impose accountability on social media platforms in Singapore to prevent impersonation scams, especially those using government officials’ images or videos; and (b) whether there will be mandated transparency or reporting requirements for platforms on impersonation incidents and their mitigation efforts.\n
Mr K Shanmugam: Facebook is the top platform used by scammers to approach victims in cases involving the impersonation of Government office holders. The Singapore Police Force (SPF) has issued an Implementation Directive to Meta, requiring it to enhance its measures to stop and prevent the publication of photos and videos of key Government office holders used in scam advertisements, remove accounts, profiles and business pages that impersonate these office holders, and prioritise the review of end user reports from Singapore on such advertisements, accounts, profiles and pages.
The Ministry of Home Affairs and SPF will also work with Meta to leverage its global impersonation protection measures to support other influential public figures in Singapore who may be at risk of being impersonated by scammers. We will also 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":"Regulation of Clinical Aesthetic Treatments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"65 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider introducing stricter penalties for individuals who provide unlicensed aesthetic treatments.
66 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health given the growing demand for aesthetic treatments, whether the Ministry will consider (i) reviewing regulations on aesthetic procedures and (ii) introducing psychological screening guidelines for patients to mitigate risks of cosmetic procedure addiction.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Clinical aesthetic procedures performed by registered medical and dental practitioners are regulated under the Healthcare Services Act (HCSA). Unauthorised persons who provide clinical aesthetic procedures are already subject to significant penalties. The Ministry of Health will continue to monitor the situation and review the adequacy of existing penalties to ensure that they serve as effective deterrents whilst protecting public safety.
Medical and dental practitioners must also abide by their respective Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines, which stipulate taking reasonable care to ensure that patients do not have psychological or psychiatric illnesses involving self and body image before providing aesthetic procedures to them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact on Singapore from Shutdown Affecting Operations and Inspective Services at US Food and Drug Administration","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"67 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in view of the United States' government shutdown which may affect the operations at its Food and Drug Administration and Food Safety and Inspection Service (a) what are the implications for food and medicines which Singapore imports from the US; and (b) how does the Ministry ensure that these products are safe for consumers and patients.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The relevant Singapore agencies have independent processes in place to ensure the safety of food and medicinal products sold in Singapore. The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) requires overseas sources of high-risk food products to be accredited before they can be imported and continues to monitor these sources regularly after accreditation. SFA also has an inspection regime to test for food safety along critical nodes of the supply chain, including at the point of import. Unsafe food products will be rejected or recalled from the market.
Medicines are registered and verified by the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) to have met rigorous international scientific standards and Good Manufacturing Practice requirements to ensure they are safe, effective and of good quality. Once the medicines are marketed, HSA conducts risk-based sampling to check that medicines continue to meet the required standards. There is also a national adverse reaction monitoring programme to detect any safety issues reported by healthcare professionals or consumers.
When necessary, SFA and HSA will take swift regulatory actions to protect public health, food and medicinal safety.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Supporting Caregivers to Obtain Time-off from Work to Accompany Parents for Medical Appointments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"68 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Manpower what measures are being considered to better support caregivers, especially frontline workers, in obtaining time-off from work to accompany their parents for medical appointments.
Dr Tan See Leng: Flexible work arrangements (FWAs) can support all employees, including frontline workers, in their caregiving responsibilities. To support employees in accessing the FWAs they need, the Government and tripartite partners implemented the Tripartite Guidelines on FWA Requests in December 2024. This sets out the process for employees to formally request for FWAs, and for employers to consider such requests on business grounds. Employees may use this process to request one-off or more sustained arrangements that could meet their specific needs.
Employees may also tap on statutory annual leave, or other voluntary provisions by employers, such as time-off and additional leave for caregivers, to meet their needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Median Out-of-pocket Bill Amounts for Common Chronic Conditions and Day Surgeries at Public Health Institutions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"69 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry can provide data for the latest trends in median out-of-pocket bills for common chronic conditions and day surgeries at public institutions; and (b) whether MediShield Life limits and CHAS tiers will be updated and bill-size transparency extended to more procedures.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: With the recent refresh in MediShield Life and MediSave limits for inpatient and day surgery treatments on 1 April 2025, there is no out-of-pocket payment for the median subsidised day surgery bill at public healthcare institutions (PHIs). For chronic conditions under the Chronic Disease Management Programme (CDMP), the median annual out-of-pocket cost of the CDMP bills at PHIs, after subsidies and MediSave, is around $50 per patient.
MediShield Life and MediSave limits as well as Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) subsidies are reviewed periodically to ensure these remain adequate amid rising healthcare costs.
The Ministry of Health (MOH) publishes hospital bill information annually for surgical procedures and inpatient medical conditions. This information is broken down by ward settings across hospitals, which allows patients to make informed choices about their healthcare providers. MOH will study if there is an impetus to publish the bill information for more conditions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Publishing Commuter Graciousness Index and Commuter Graciousness Survey Results","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"70 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry can publish the Commuter Graciousness Index and Commuter Graciousness survey results over the last five years; and (b) whether the Land Transport Authority can consider additional measures to encourage commuters to give up their seats for the elderly, pregnant women and other commuters in need on public transport systems.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: We had answered a similar question by Member of Parliament Assoc Prof Jamus Lim on 26 September 2025. As mentioned in the written reply, we have been encouraging commuters to offer their seats to those who need them more through the Caring SG Commuter Movement and campaigns on gracious commuting behaviour. [Please refer to \"Policy Enhancements for Priority Seating on Public Transport and Considerations for Legal Enforcement\", Official Report, 26 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 6, Written Answers to Questions section.]
The Government tracks the perceptions of graciousness on public transport through various studies by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the Public Transport Council. We are currently reviewing the methodology of the LTA survey that was previously used to derive the Commuter Graciousness Index.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Deceased Flat Owners with Arrears Owed to Town Councils","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"71 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many deceased flat owners currently owe arrears to Town Councils; (b) what proportion of these cases involve arrears of more than nine months; and (c) what is the total value of such arrears owed by deceased owners.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Ministry of National Development monitors Town Councils' overall arrears rates but does not have data to the level of granularity requested by the Member.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Planned Studies to Assess Developmental Impact of Grow Well SG","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"72 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what longitudinal studies are planned to assess the developmental impact of Grow Well SG; (b) what qualitative assessment metrics are used to evaluate outcomes; and (c) whether findings from these studies will be made publicly available to inform future policy development.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: We assess the impact of Grow Well SG by monitoring and assessing the long-term impact of healthy lifestyle habits on the children's health outcomes.
To do so, we track indicators such as the amount of time spent on screens, physical activity and sleep, as these have shown to have an impact on the health and development outcomes of children. We will also conduct surveys to measure parental awareness on healthy habits to evaluate and refine our initiatives and resources for Grow Well SG. Building healthy lifestyle habits is a lifelong process, and we will continue to monitor these efforts on an ongoing basis. We will share insights when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Food Waste Segregation Programme for Households Nation-wide","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"73 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether there are any plans to introduce a food waste segregation programme for households nationwide modelled after the \"Food Waste? Don't Waste!\" pilot in or around 2018; and (b) if not, why not.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Food waste is one of the three priority waste streams under the Zero Waste Masterplan. As part of our national approach, we have implemented a range of efforts to holistically reduce the amount of food waste generated and improve food waste recycling, including segregation of food waste from large industrial and commercial generators.
We are encouraged that community partners, such as Public Waste Collectors and Town Councils, have trialled the collection of segregated food waste from households. However, the household participation rate of some of these trials could not be sustained despite regular engagement and reminders. Ultimately, the support of all stakeholders is needed to sustain such household food waste segregation initiatives.
My Ministry continues to encourage such ground-up initiatives to manage food waste and is prepared to support promising proposals. In addition, we will continue to review measures and explore ways to reduce food waste and improve food waste recycling from domestic premises.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Providing Stronger Incentives and Safeguards for Schools to Open Facilities for Community Use","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"74 Ms Diana Pang Li Yen asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will consider (a) providing stronger incentives or clearer guidelines to encourage schools to open their facilities for community use; (b) implementing safeguards and support mechanisms to minimise the risks and administrative burdens faced by principals in doing so; and (c) establishing a more systematic, nationwide framework to ensure community access is consistent rather than discretionary.
Mr Desmond Lee: My response will also cover the matters raised in the questions by Ms Elysa Chen and Ms Gho Sze Kee1 scheduled for subsequent Sittings.
The Ministry of Education (MOE) partners Sport Singapore (SportSG) and the People's Association to facilitate community usage of school facilities outside of school hours. New schools are designed with sports facilities that facilitate community usage. Schools can also allow private buses to park overnight in their car parks.
To date, about 180 school fields and 220 indoor sports halls are actively used by the community under the MOE-SportSG Dual-Use Scheme (DUS). ActiveSG members can book school sport facilities, such as badminton, basketball and pickleball courts, for their use. Ninety percent of Government schools are already participating in DUS, and we target to onboard the rest by early next year.
To ease the administrative burden of participating DUS schools, SportSG manages the facility booking process and is responsible for the facilities during community sharing hours, ensuring they will be clean and ready for students. Here, I would like to appeal to our community users of school facilities to take good care of them, so that our students will have a pleasant environment to return for assembly on Monday.
We will continue to work to support schools to facilitate community use of school facilities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry will incentivise more schools to open facilities such as multi-purpose halls and car parks for public use, in line with our \"we first\" society and the need to make good use of limited resources; and (b) whether additional sports such as pickleball can be accommodated, given that security and property risks can be mitigated."],"footNoteQuestions":["74"],"questionNo":"74"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints from Sentosa Residents on Poor Mobile Network Connectivity","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"75 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information over the past five years (a) how many complaints have been made by residents of Sentosa regarding poor mobile network connectivity; and (b) whether the Ministry can provide an update on the actions taken to resolve such issues.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Over the past five years, the Infocomm Media Development Authority has received four complaints regarding poor mobile network connectivity at two condominiums in Sentosa. Mobile network operators have resolved the issue for one condominium and they are working to enhance coverage for the other condominium.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Public Rental Flats to be Constructed Over Next Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"76 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for National Development how many new public rental units is the Ministry planning to construct over the next five years.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: About 4,600 public rental flats are expected to complete over 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":"Educational Tours on Offshore Fish Farms and Kelongs to Increase Appreciation for Local Produce","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"77 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Ministry will consider working with (i) other Ministries like the Ministry of Education and Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth and (ii) the communities, to establish a framework to allow educational tours on offshore fish farms or kelongs, so as to increase the appreciation for local produce and strengthen our cultural identity.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) has been focusing on supporting the growth of our local farms and raising their productivity such as through the adoption of technologies. For public safety and biosecurity reasons, visits to offshore fish farms and kelongs are not encouraged. Nonetheless, SFA, in collaboration with the industry and other agencies, such as the Ministry of Education, has several initiatives to raise awareness on the benefits of local produce among the community.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Take-up Rate for Physical CDC Vouchers and Reasons for Cessation of Physical Vouchers Issuance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"78 Mr David Hoe asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether physical voucher uptake rates were considered before ceasing issuance of notification letters for May 2025 CDC vouchers; (b) what are the redemption rates disaggregated by age and redemption channels for current and previous tranches in the first (i) week (ii) month of roll-outs; and (c) whether opt-in paper-vouchers options that carry over to future tranches will be considered.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I am answering in my capacity as the Minister charged with the responsibility for the People's Association. The Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers Scheme aims to help Singaporean households cope with the cost of living and support hawkers and heartland merchants.
Over the years, the CDCs have received feedback from residents asking why there was a need for notification letters. Upon review of achieving a consistent high claim rates for CDC vouchers since 2021, averaging about 97% in the past tranches, and in support of environmental sustainability, the CDCs decided to stop sending notification letters from the seventh CDC vouchers tranche onwards, that is, from the May 2025 tranche, after much deliberation.
While there were no notification letters for the May 2025 tranche, the CDCs continued to create public awareness by publicising through various platforms, such as media announcements, newspaper advertisements, social media channels, street banners, digital display panels at lift landings, CDC Vouchers Website and also community posters to guide residents on how to claim and spend their vouchers. Singaporeans who have difficulties with the digital claim process could also seek help at all community centres or community clubs and SG Digital Community Hubs. This assistance to the digitally-less savvy Singaporeans remains unchanged.
In fact, even without the notification letters, the claim rate for the May 2025 tranche remains comparable to the other tranches. This high claim rate is a testimony that Singaporeans are already familiar and comfortable with the claim process.
As for the suggestion to roll-over the vouchers to future tranches, we would like to reiterate that the CDC vouchers are meant to help Singaporeans with their daily expenses. If Singaporeans do not need the vouchers, they can donate the balance vouchers to their preferred Institutions of a Public Character charity.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Practice of Motor Insurers Reducing Third-party Damages Awards to Accident Victims by Deducting Sums Paid Out from Victims' MediShield Life","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"79 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether there is any legislation disallowing motor insurers from reducing third-party damages awarded to accident victims by deducting sums paid out by the victim's MediShield Life; (b) if not, whether the Ministry will consider introducing such legislation, and (c) whether the Ministry has data on the prevalence of such practices by insurers.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Singapore Courts have recognised in precedent cases that insurers cannot reduce third-party damages awarded to victims by deducting sums paid out by the victim's MediShield Life policy. The Courts have taken this position based on the Insurance Exception to the rule against double recovery under the common law, which states that the injured victim's insurance claims are not deductible from damages payable by the wrongdoer. Courts in other common law countries, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, also recognise this doctrine.
There is thus already an established legal principle in place to address the concern.
The Ministry does not have data on the prevalence of the practices of motor insurers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Climate Change and Rising Temperatures on Structural Condition and Appearance of Older Buildings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"80 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for National Development in light of climate change and rising temperatures (a) what has been the observed impact on the structural condition and appearance of older buildings; and (b) whether such buildings, particularly HDB flats, are experiencing more issues such as spalling concrete, peeling surfaces and mould growth.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: A similar question was filed by former Member of Parliament Dr Lim Wee Kiak in February 2023.
As buildings age, wear and tear is expected. Higher heat and more intense rainfall from climate change may result in more cases of spalling concrete, peeling paint, or mould growth.
With regular inspections, timely repairs and adoption of new technologies, our buildings, including Housing and Development Board flats, continue to be structurally safe. The Building and Construction Authority has mandatory inspection regimes to ensure that defects are detected and rectified early. Since 2022, older buildings more than 20 years of age and above 13 metres in height must undergo a façade inspection every seven years. Periodic structural inspections are also required every ten years for all residential buildings. By using technology, such as drones and structural scanners, defects can also be identified more quickly and safely.
Town Councils maintain the building facade by planning and carrying out Repair and Redecoration works, which include repainting and addressing peeling surfaces and mould growth. They may bring forward such works depending on the building’s condition.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Allocating Students to Junior College Courses Before Knowing if They Qualify under Joint Admissions Exercise","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"83 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Education under the Joint Admission Exercise for junior colleges (JCs), what is the justification for allocating a student to a JC first without consideration of whether they will qualify for their preferred stream of study.
Mr Desmond Lee: Under the Joint Admission Exercise, students select either the Arts or Science course for each junior college (JC) they apply to. Thereafter, students will be posted to the relevant JC and course for which they met the respective cut-off points. In other words, students are posted to the JC only if they meet the cut-off point of their preferred course of study.
In isolated cases where a JC assesses that the student is likely to face significant difficulties in coping with certain subjects or subject combinations in the course that he or she is posted to, they may advise the student to take a different subject combination or be transferred to a different course. There was one such case in 2025, where the student was not offered a subject combination of the course he was posted to.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Design and Installation of Smaller Lifts for Lift Upgrading Programme in Choa Chu Kang Ave 3","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"84 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for National Development (a) what were the reasons for the design and installation of smaller lifts under previous Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) such as those in Choa Chu Kang Avenue 3; and (b) whether future HDB LUPs will involve consultations with residents and stakeholders to ensure larger lift designs that can accommodate first responders in evacuation scenarios.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: In assessing the type of lifts to install under the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP), the Housing and Development Board takes a holistic approach to design for technical feasibility and cost effectiveness. The smaller-capacity lifts were installed for low-rise blocks with few units, such as those at Choa Chu Kang Ave 3. These smaller capacity lifts were designed to be wide enough to accommodate a standard wheelchair easily. While these lifts cannot accommodate Singapore Civil Defence Force's stretcher, SCDF will use alternative methods of evacuation, such as a soft carrying canvas or staircase evacuation.
For all LUP projects, including those conducted for blocks at Choa Chu Kang Ave 3, the lift dimensions were communicated to residents through brochures and posters as part of the polling process.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Health Risks Arising from Non-prescribed Performance-enhancing Drug Use","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"85 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what public-health risks arise from non-prescribed performance-enhancing drug (PED) use such as human growth hormone, clenbuterol, trenbolone, and anabolic steroids, particularly among youths; (b) what targeted education exists within gyms and Institutes of Higher Learning to counter normalisation; and (c) how are these programmes' effectiveness and behavioural outcomes measured.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Androgenic steroids and human growth hormones are prescription-only medicines which should only be used under medical supervision. These products are not approved for enhancing physical performance and individuals should not be consuming these drugs beyond their prescribed purposes. These drugs can cause serious side effects when used without medical supervision, including stroke, serious heart, liver and kidney problems. Members of the public who encounter the illegal supply or illegitimate use of these drugs should contact the Enforcement Branch of the Health Sciences Authority.
The Anti-Doping Singapore (ADS) is working with Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) to deliver anti-doping education outreach programmes to their student-athletes. The aim is to create greater awareness among the student-athlete population over time on the consequences of abusing performance-enhancing drugs. Following the roll-out of these programmes, ADS will continue to work with IHLs to determine their effectiveness.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessing Current State of Racial and Religious Relations in Singapore","subTitle":"Whether recent incidents such as the Israel-Hamas conflict have widened social divides","sectionType":"WANA","content":"87 Mr Alex Yam asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) how the Government assesses the current state of racial and religious relations in Singapore; (b) whether recent incidents overseas, such as the Israel-Hamas conflict and political violence in the US, have widened social divides or heightened sensitivities locally; and (c) what measures are in place to prevent external actors and foreign issues from causing fissures to emerge within Singapore society.
Mr K Shanmugam: Different segments of our society may feel differently about, and identify with different sides in external developments and conflicts. Nevertheless, we assess that racial and religious relations in Singapore remain generally healthy, but we do not take this for granted.
The Israel-Hamas conflict, in particular, is an issue that many Singaporeans across racial and religious groups feel strongly about. While all of us share a deep concern about the humanitarian tragedy in Gaza, there are differing and strong opinions on blame and how to move things forward for Israel and Palestine. This is why the Government has taken a careful approach in managing public discussions, to avoid polarisation of our society on the issue and damage to our cohesion and harmony.
While developments, including political violence in the United States (US), have not divided Singaporeans, it is still of concern, because all of us consume a large amount of news from overseas, including the US. If we are not careful, over time, what we see happening elsewhere can become normalised here, and seep into our DNA and political discourse. We could then see similar sharp and uncompromising divides among Singaporeans over politics.
That is why the Government takes every threat to our social cohesion seriously, whether from abroad or local. There are provisions in the Penal Code, Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act, Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act, Online Criminal Harms Act and Broadcasting Act to help us manage such threats.
The Government also works actively to strengthen our social harmony by building trust and understanding across our racial and religious communities. For example, the National Steering Committee on Racial and Religious Harmony brings together apex religious leaders. Similarly, the Racial and Religious Harmony Circles supports inter-faith and inter-ethnic initiatives, such as cross-cultural dialogues, across different constituencies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Engineering and Operational Criteria to Differentiate Isolated Incidents from Underlying Systemic Issues in Rail Network","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"88 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) what specific engineering and operational criteria does the Ministry use to distinguish between isolated incidents and underlying systemic issues within the rail network; and (b) what analytical processes are in place to identify systemic weaknesses, such as those in maintenance regimes or asset renewal planning, that may link service disruptions which may otherwise appear to be isolated.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: A train network is a complex system that comprises many different parts that need to work together. To diagnose the cause of a rail incident, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) analyses fault trends and reliability performance indicators across different rail lines and systems. LTA also analyses information including system logs, the condition of assets, and maintenance records, amongst others.
The disruptions in July to September occurred across different Mass Rapid Transit lines. Investigations so far indicate that the incidents have different causes, and similar issues are not likely to occur on other lines. Nonetheless, we have formed the Rail Reliability Taskforce to review these recent incidents thoroughly and jointly conduct audits on the condition, maintenance practices and operations of critical systems, to further reassure ourselves that there are no systemic problems.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact on Singapore's Social Fabric when Religious Leaders are Trained Overseas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"89 Mr Alex Yam asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what is the impact on Singapore's social fabric when more religious leaders are now being trained overseas; (b) how the Ministry works with religious organisations to ensure Singapore's multicultural values are upheld; and (c) what proactive measures are in place to strengthen social cohesion and safeguarding against the import of divisive foreign ideologies, while respecting individuals’ freedom to seek religious formation.
Mr David Neo: Religious leaders in Singapore play an important role. They promote values like care and compassion and help their congregants navigate contemporary issues in a multicultural and multi-religious society.
It is crucial that religious teachers in Singapore are committed to maintaining social harmony, regardless of whether they are trained locally or abroad.
Hence, we welcome efforts by our religious communities to train religious teachers who are grounded in the Singaporean context, such as through the Trinity Theological College, St Francis Xavier Major Seminary, and the Buddhist College of Singapore. The Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) also conducts the Postgraduate Certificate in Islam in Contemporary Societies (PCICS) course to equip returning asatizah with the knowledge and skills to provide religious leadership for the Muslim community and is establishing the Singapore College of Islamic Studies (SCIS) to train future asatizah locally.
Programmes are also in place to promote continual social mixing and improve mutual understanding between communities. For instance, our Racial and Religious Harmony Circles organise events and dialogues to build understanding and trust among different racial and religious groups.
We need individuals and communities to continue to build trust and embrace our differences in order to build a cohesive society where everyone can live together harmoniously.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Baseline Categories of Stalls in Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"90 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Ministry will consider mandating certain baseline categories of stalls, such as economy rice stalls, in Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centres.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centre (SEHC) operators curate stalls at their centres and adjust their stall mix over time, taking into account factors such as patrons' needs and demands. We 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":"Outcome of Police Investigations on SPH Media's Overstatement of Circulation Figures in 2023","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"91 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs whether an update can be provided on the outcome of investigations into the police report made by the Board of SPH Media Holdings over overstated circulation figures of SPH news publications in 2023, and if not, why not.
Mr K Shanmugam: The investigation is still going on.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Verifying Efficacy of Protection Levels in Sunscreen Products","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"92 Mr Alex Yam asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry has assessed if sunscreen products sold in Singapore have discrepancies between their labelled and actual SPF protection levels; (b) what regulatory measures are in place to verify the accuracy of products with medical efficacy claims to ensure consumer safety; and (c) whether the Ministry will review current testing and lab accreditation standards to prevent such incidents locally.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Sunscreen products are regulated as cosmetic products under the Health Products Act by the Health Sciences Authority (HSA). No pre-market approval is required as they are not intended to prevent, treat or cure diseases. Instead, dealers have to notify HSA before placing their products on the local market. Dealers and sellers must also ensure that their products comply with labelling requirements and that the claims made on their product labels can be substantiated and are not false or misleading. Specifically for sunscreen products, they must only contain UV filters assessed to be safe and effective in providing protection against harmful UV rays.
HSA conducts risk-based post-market surveillance to monitor the compliance of cosmetic products sold locally. Sunscreen products are sampled and tested to verify the presence of the UV filters declared on product labels and that the UV filters comply with regulatory limits.
HSA monitors online news and regulatory actions by competent authorities, conducting follow-up actions when needed. HSA is therefore aware that there have been product recalls of sunscreen products in Australia. Australia's regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), has listed 21 products with a base formula that are likely to fail SPF testing. These products are not notified for sale in Singapore.
There are two products notified with HSA, which are under investigation by TGA after tests by an Australian consumer protection organisation which disputed the SPF test results. HSA is working with the local company marketing these products to verify the accuracy of their SPF claims, and not to distribute the products until the SPF test reports are found to be satisfactory. Additionally, HSA will conduct checks on SPF test reports from suppliers of other sunscreen products notified with HSA.
Suppliers found to be selling or supplying non-compliant cosmetic products or cosmetic products with misleading claims may face penalties of up to $50,000 in fines or imprisonment for up to two years, or both.
HSA will continue to ensure that our testing and laboratory accreditation standards are aligned with international best practices.
","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 Plans under Advance Care Planning","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"93 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health regarding Advance Care Planning (ACP) (a) to date, how many people have made plans under the ACP; (b) what is the breakdown of this number by age group, gender and race respectively; and (c) whether the Ministry will share a progress report on its efforts to educate the public about ACP.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: As of September 2025, more than 87,000 Advance Care Plans (ACPs) have been completed, double the number since the Ministry of Health started its “Plan Your Legacy Today!” campaign in 2023, whereby 94% of these ACPs were by those aged 50 and above, 57% by females and 82% by Chinese residents, with Malay and Indian residents comprising 7% and 4% respectively.
We will continue to promote the completion of ACP. Most recently, we launched the myACP digital tool that enables healthy individuals to make their ACPs online for free. Since June 2025, 4,350 digital ACPs have been completed through myACP. We also conduct targeted outreach to seniors through touchpoints in the community, including Active Ageing Centres and general practitioner clinics.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Utilisation Rate and Cost of Marine Parade Cluster WeCare Shuttle Bus Service","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"95 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what were the utilisation rates and actual costs of the Marine Parade Cluster WeCare Shuttle Service during its one-year pilot; (b) what are the future plans for the service; (c) whether the Government has provided additional funding beyond the initial one-off $200,000 seed grant; and (d) whether any other grassroots organisations are planning such community-based shuttle services.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I am answering in my capacity as the Minister charged with the responsibility for the People's Association.
The Marine Parade shuttle bus service is a ground-up initiative by the Grassroots Organisations (GROs) of the Marine Parade Town Cluster. It was started with a seed grant of $200,000 by South East Community Development Council (CDC), with the aim of trialling a bus service for better connectivity for residents. There is a total of six bus routes each plying different routes. It was a pilot project which started in early July 2024.
The service has been regularly reviewed throughout its pilot, with some adjustments being made at the end of last year after user feedback was obtained. On the whole, utilisation of the service varies from route to route and also depending on the time of the day.
Following the latest review, the GROs of the Marine Parade Town Cluster have assessed and decided not to continue with the bus service when the current contract period is up on 20 November 2025 and instead re-direct their resources in a more targeted manner. Further information on this and alternative plans will be shared by the Marine Parade Town Cluster GROs with their residents.
Beyond the $200,000 seed grant provided by the South East CDC to implement the pilot, the rest of the funds used to run the bus service throughout the entire period were raised by the GROs and through donations.
As to whether any other GROs are planning such community-based shuttle services, it would depend on factors, such as the specific local needs of the residents, the cost of any such services and the availability of alternatives.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Detect and Deter Incidents That May Provoke Racial or Religous Disharmony","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"96 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what proactive measures are in place to detect and deter incidents that may provoke racial or religious disharmony; and (b) whether additional resources will be directed to strengthen early detection and community resilience.
Mr K Shanmugam: My reply will address Mr Zhulkarnain's question on measures to deter incidents that may provoke racial or religious disharmony.
I believe the Member has asked his question 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 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 the 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":"Recruitment of Money Mules by Criminal Syndicates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"97 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what proportion of the scam related money mules arrested were unwitting accomplices of the criminal syndicates involved; (b) what are the common recruitment methods used by these syndicates; and (c) whether the Ministry has plans to implement further tools to combat such recruitment.
Mr K Shanmugam: My reply will also address the Parliamentary Questions on the facility restriction framework for scam mules, filed by Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Cai Yinzhou for a Sitting on or after 16 October. [Please refer to \"Data on Scam Mule Investigations from January to June 2025 and Interim Support Measures for Unknowing Victims\", Official Report, 4 November 2025, Vol 96, Issue 9, Written Answers to Questions section; and \"Follow-up Actions to Rectify Restrictions for Persons Acquitted as Scam Mules\", Official Report, 4 November 2025, Vol 96, Issue 9, Written Answers to Questions section.]
Scammers pay mules to provide facilities such as bank accounts, phone lines and Singpass accounts, which they use to commit scams and launder the proceeds. Recruitment is typically done through online messaging and social media platforms. The Police work closely with online platforms to detect and take down accounts and advertisements which are being used for such purposes.
The Ministry of Home Affairs has been taking a tough stance against mules. We have introduced offences targeted at mules who relinquish their bank accounts, SIM cards and Singpass credentials, to scammers. In the first half of 2025, the Police investigated over 3,500 money mules and scammers, of whom more than 500 have already been charged.
The Police have no intention of charging individuals who were genuinely tricked into providing facilities to scammers. The Police investigate scam cases comprehensively and will consider if the suspects were tricked into helping the scammers. The Attorney-General's Chambers will also carefully assess the cases, to determine whether the evidential threshold of the offence is met, and whether it would be in the public interest to prosecute the individual.
The Police do not keep data on cases involving individuals who were tricked into helping scammers.
Starting this month, the Government is implementing a new facility restriction framework, which restricts scam mules’ access to facilities including financial, telecommunications, and Singpass services, which can be exploited to facilitate more scams. This will apply to mules who have been warned, issued with composition sums, prosecuted, or convicted of mule-related offences, as well as individuals under investigation for mule-related offences who are assessed to be at risk of further facilitating scams. The Police will lift these restrictions when they are no longer required or if these individuals are acquitted in court.
Individuals subject to banking restrictions will still have access to basic banking facilities and can continue to receive incoming payments, including salaries and government benefits. They may also visit a bank branch to withdraw or transfer money.
Individuals who believe they have been wrongfully subject to such restrictions may appeal to the Police.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Manned Service Counters at Banks for Less Tech-savvy Seniors' Banking Needs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Ministry monitors the ratio of manned bank front counters to senior residents across different areas in Singapore; (b) if so, what is this ratio; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider mandating banks to maintain a minimum ratio of manned counters to enable less tech-savvy seniors to conduct their banking needs.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): Bank branches serve as important service touchpoints for customers, especially seniors who may not be familiar with digital platforms. While the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) does not collect data on the number of manned counters, we do track the number of bank branches and their locations. MAS engages banks and emphasises to them the importance of providing adequate support to seniors, including through adequate coverage of branches. When planning branch operations, banks do consider demographic factors such as the elderly population in the area and have established dedicated queues or priority assistance for seniors where needed.
Banks also work with community partners to organise digital literacy programmes to help seniors acquire digital skills and bolster digital inclusion. At branches, they deploy Digital Ambassadors who are proficient in mother tongue languages or dialects to assist seniors with their banking needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment of Non-resident Population Increase from 2021 to 2025 and Contributing Factors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what proportion of the close to 30% increase in non-residents between 2021 and 2025 is temporary; and (b) what are the reasons for this increase.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): Work Permit Holders (WPHs) accounted for 60% of the increase in the non-resident population between 2021 and 2025. About half of these were from the construction sector, including those supporting the ramp-up of public housing and major infrastructure projects, such as Changi Terminal 5. The next largest increase, accounting for 13% of the increase in the non-resident population, was in the number of migrant domestic workers to meet the greater demand for caregiving support for children and the elderly. Both WPHs and MDWs are transient groups.
The 30% increase in non-residents between 2021 and 2025 should also be interpreted against the context of COVID-19. Border restrictions and weaker economic conditions contributed to the lower base of non-residents in 2021. With the subsequent easing of travel restrictions and recovery of economic activity post-COVID-19, firms backfilled positions vacated during the pandemic. This was especially marked in the construction sector where contractors hired a significant number of WPHs to catch up on delayed projects. As such, the annual increase in the non-resident population was 6.8% on average from 2021 to 2025, compared to 2.2% when using the pre-COVID-19 base year of 2019.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of ABSD Collected from PRs by Property Type and Price Range over Last Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance for each year over the last five years where Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) was levied on Permanent Residents, what is the breakdown by number of cases and ABSD collected for (i) HDB properties, (ii) private properties with a purchase price below S$1.5 million, and (iii) private properties with a purchase price above S$1.5 million.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: From 2020 to 2024, the average number of residential property transactions that involved the levying of Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) on Singapore Permanent Residents (SPRs) was around 6,600 per year. The corresponding average ABSD collected was around S$462 million per year.
Out of these transactions, about 33% were for Housing and Development Board (HDB) properties; about 43% were for private properties with a purchase price below S$1.5 million and about 24% were for private properties with a purchase price equal to or above S$1.5 million. In terms of ABSD collected, HDB properties accounted for about 12%; private properties with a purchase price below S$1.5 million accounted for about 31%; and private properties with a purchase price equal to or above S$1.5 million accounted for the remaining 57%.
Joint purchases by SPRs and foreigners are not included in the above-mentioned data, as these purchases will have to pay ABSD under the profile with the higher ABSD rate, that is, the ABSD rate for foreigners.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Operating Surplus and Business Costs Metrics for Overall Economy and across Manufacturing and Services Industries from 2016 to 2024","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry what are the levels of (a) unit net operating surplus, (b) unit gross operating surplus and (c) unit business costs in each year from 2016 to 2024 and in the first half of 2025, when indexed to year 2016, for the (i) overall economy (ii) manufacturing industry, (iii) outward-oriented services industry and (iv) domestic-oriented services industry.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Department of Statistics does not compile data on unit net operating surplus and unit gross operating surplus.
Table 1 presents data on unit business cost (UBC) for the manufacturing and services sectors from 2016 to 2024 and the first half of 2025, indexed to 2016. Data on UBC for the overall economy and a breakdown into the UBC for outward-oriented and domestic-oriented services industries are not available.
5 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what has been the impact of the United States government shutdown on Singapore; and (b) what are the plans to reduce the impact.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: We have not observed any macroeconomic impact on Singapore as a result of the United States (US) government shutdown. However, a prolonged shutdown could dampen economic sentiments and activity in the US, and hence, demand for our exports.
Regardless of these developments, the Government is committed to helping our businesses and workers navigate challenges in the uncertain global economic landscape. For businesses, schemes such as the Enterprise Development Grant are in place to help them transform and explore new growth opportunities. Those affected by the US tariff measures can also tap on the Business Adaptation Grant launched by the Singapore Economic Resilience Taskforce (SERT) to evaluate the impact, optimise their supply chains and reconfigure their operations. For individuals, the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support scheme helps involuntarily unemployed jobseekers bounce back. The Government has also made available a wide range of upskilling and reskilling programmes to equip workers with the skills to remain employable. In addition, SERT has launched the GRaduate Industry Traineeships programme to boost the employability of fresh graduates amidst economic uncertainty.
The Government will continue to monitor developments closely and if necessary, adapt our responses to help businesses and workers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Progress and Completion of Review of Formula 1 Contracts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Ministry can provide an update on the progress of the review of the Formula 1 contracts as committed by the Government in February 2024; and (b) what is the expected timeline for its completion.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: I issued a Ministerial Direction in 2024 for the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) to convene an independent Review Committee to review the terms of its current contract with Singapore GP Pte Ltd (SGP) for the Singapore Grand Prix 2022 to 2028, also known as the Term 4 Facilitation Agreement.
The Review Committee has completed its work and submitted its report to me and Minister Grace Fu as the Minister-in-charge of Trade Relations and overseeing tourism. The Review Committee was satisfied that the Government's interests were sufficiently safeguarded and that the terms of the deal constituted a fair and reasonable exchange of commercial obligations and benefits between the Government and SGP. The economic benefits that accrued to Singapore outweighed the costs, and the foreign visitorship and incremental tourism receipts that Singapore received from hosting Formula 1 (F1) exceeded targets. The Review Committee assessed that the Singapore Grand Prix continued to grow in relevance and importance to Singapore, and hosting the F1 race continued to elevate Singapore's international branding. The races in Term 4 have thus far performed well.
The Review Committee also assessed that the Government was diligent, rigorous and careful in approaching the F1 project, and no irregularities were observed. For instance, the Government appointed external legal counsel to vet the Facilitation Agreement to ensure that the Government's interests were sufficiently protected.
Notwithstanding this, the Review Committee identified ways to enhance the existing processes between STB and SGP to further safeguard the Government's interests, and areas of improvement for any future renewal of the F1 project.
Members will understand that the report of the Review Committee will not be published due to business confidentiality.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Mental Health Crisis Intervention and Training for Frontline Police Officers and Post-incident Follow-up Support","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs for the last five years (a) what is the number of Police activations involving suicide risk or self-harm with age breakdowns; (b) what are the average response time and outcomes; (c) what is the proportion of frontline officers trained in such crisis intervention; and (d) what are the partnerships established for post-incident follow-up.
Mr K Shanmugam: When the Police receive reports involving attempted suicide, they will dispatch the nearest available resource, with the aim of responding within 15 minutes. They do not track the number of such activations.
All frontline Police Officers are trained to handle a wide range of incidents, including attempted suicide. Officers also undergo a Mental Health Awareness Course, developed by the Agency of Integrated Care, to help them understand the signs and symptoms of various mental health conditions and how to engage persons with such conditions.
Where necessary, the officers will activate additional resources, such as the Singapore Civil Defence Force's Disaster Assistance and Rescue Teams (DART) and the Police's Crisis Negotiation Unit (CNU). DART is specially trained for complex rescue operations, including cases of attempted suicide at height. CNU has Police Officers and psychologists who are specially trained to engage individuals in crisis situations.
The Police also have established protocols for referring attempted suicide cases to mental health professionals. For example, the Institute of Mental Health's (IMH's) Crisis Response Team is a joint initiative by IMH, the Police and the Ministry of Health, to support Police Officers with immediate assessments to determine the appropriate interventions. In cases where psychiatric support is needed, the individuals may be conveyed to IMH.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Addressing Under-reporting of Scam Cases and Measures to Encourage Victims to File Reports","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what current estimates exist regarding the extent of under-reporting of scam cases in Singapore; and (b) what measures are being implemented to encourage more victims, including those who have not suffered large monetary losses, to come forward and report such incidents.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Ministry does not have estimates of under-reporting.
Our national anti-scam campaign, \"I can ACT (Add, Check, Tell) against scams\", advises members of the public to lodge a Police report if they have been scammed. We have also included this advice in the anti-scam resource guide that the Police have been disseminating to all households since July 2025.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Large and Foreign-registered Vehicles Speeding in Overtaking Lanes and Enforcement Measures against Speeding","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Ministry has data on the prevalence of lorries, vans and other larger vehicles speeding, particularly in the overtaking lanes of major roads; (b) whether work-related pressures contribute to such behaviour; (c) how many such foreign-registered vehicles have been caught speeding in right lanes and how fines are enforced; and (d) whether targeted enforcement against such vehicles will be considered.
Mr K Shanmugam: The number of speeding violations broken down by vehicle types for 2024 are as follows:
The Traffic Police does not track the lane in which the vehicles were speeding, or the reasons for speeding. However, offenders often cite the lack of awareness of the speed limit or of the speed at which they were travelling and urgency to reach appointments.
Foreign-registered vehicles with outstanding vehicular-related fines may be denied entry into Singapore by the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority until their composition sums or Court fines are paid.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Rejected Applications of LTVP and LTVP+ due to Criminal History, Conduct Issues or Income Requirements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs from 2020 to 2024 (a) what are the annual numbers of LTVP and LTVP+ rejections due to (i) criminal convictions and (ii) the conduct of either the applicant or sponsor; (b) what are the minimum income requirements to sponsor an LTVP application, if any; and (c) what is the number of cases rejected in spite of meeting the sponsorship requirements.
Mr K Shanmugam: From 2020 to 2024, about 7% of Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP)/ Long-Term Visit Pass Plus (LTVP+) applications were rejected. Grant of LTVP/ LTVP+ (these are granted to foreigners) are evaluated on a range of criteria. The Ministry has in the past said that it is not in the public interest to reveal the detailed criteria to prevent attempts to game the system.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Aligning Penalties for Vaping Substance Impaired Driving with Drink-driving Traffic Offences and Strengthening Deterrent Sentencing Measures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the current penalties for traffic offences committed by motorists under the influence of substances, including vaping-related substances such as etomidate, are aligned in severity with those for drink-driving offences; and (b) whether stronger deterrent sentencing measures will be considered in light of the growing danger of vaping.
Mr K Shanmugam: The offence of driving under the influence of drugs carries the same penalties as drink-driving. Offenders will face additional penalties for drug consumption.
We review our penalties periodically and will consider the Member's suggestion in due course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of New Citizenships and Permanent Residencies by Country of Birth for Insights into Singapore's Population Trends","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether there has been a change in the Government's policy on releasing the breakdown in the new citizenships and permanent residencies by country of birth; and (b) if not, whether the Government will release more granular data for citizens to better understand the trends of Singapore's societal make-up.
Mr K Shanmugam: We have explained previously in Parliament that we do not provide data on the number of new Citizens and Permanent Residents by specific countries of origin because this can create bilateral sensitivities and is not in our national interest.
Our position has not changed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Utilisation Rates of NS LifeSG Credits and Considerations to Extend Validity Period","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Coordinating Minister for Public Services and Minister for Defence (a) what is the percentage of eligible National Servicemen who have yet to fully utilise their NS LifeSG credits; (b) how many have not used any of the credits; (c) whether the Ministry will extend the validity period beyond the one-year deadline; and (d) whether the Ministry will conduct a review of the reasons for the unutilised credits.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: In November 2024, $200 National Service (NS) LifeSG Credits were disbursed to each eligible past and present National Servicemen from the Singapore Armed Forces and Home Team to recognise their contributions to Singapore's defence and security.
The utilisation of the NS LifeSG Credits has been high. As of end-September 2025, 87% of recipients had used their credits at least once. Over 61% of recipients have fully utilised their credits, while another 13% have less than $2 worth of remaining credits.
The one-year validity period of the NS LifeSG Credits was made known at the point of disbursement. It is consistent with the validity period for previous vouchers or credits disbursed to recognise National Servicemen. To encourage National Servicemen to redeem the credits before expiry, the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) has broadcasted direct reminders to National Servicemen via SMS, as well as through mass messages on MINDEF's social media platforms.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Wait Times, Referral Sources, Staffing and Re-engagement Rates for Youth Mental Health Services over Last Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health for each of the last five years and in respect of public child and adolescent mental health services, what is the (i) the median and 90th-percentile wait times from referral to first appointment (ii) referral sources (iii) staffing ratios and vacancies and (iv) no-show rates and re-engagement actions taken.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: All referrals to specialist mental health services at the National University Hospital (NUH) and the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) are triaged. Those requiring more urgent specialist assessment and/or treatment are given earlier appointments or are referred to the Emergency Services for review on the same day. The median times for specialist child and adolescent mental health services, based on available data in NUH and IMH, were 34 days in 2020 and 26 days in 2024. The 90th to 95th percentile wait times were 94 days in 2020 and 84 days in 2024.
Majority of referrals come from the public healthcare system, mainly polyclinics, in 2024. Other referral sources include general practitioners and community mental health services.
Our public child and adolescent mental health services employ multidisciplinary teams including nurses, allied health professionals and psychiatrists. Each psychiatrist sees between 1,300 to 1,500 outpatient attendances per year. So far, staffing has been stable.
No-show rates have decreased from about 22% in 2020 to 14% in 2024. Various re-engagement actions have been taken including pre-appointment confirmation calls and telephone follow-ups for missed appointments.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extending MediSave Coverage to Funeral-related Expenses and Posthumous Expenditures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether an individual's Medisave account may be used for immediate family's wake-related expenses; and (b) if not, whether the distinction between end-of-life medical expenditures and posthumous expenditures is artificial, given that immediate family members typically bear both costs without exceptions.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: As MediSave is intended to support healthcare expenses, especially, in old age, contributions to MediSave are sized accordingly, for healthcare needs only. Hence, allowing MediSave for non-healthcare expenses, beyond its intended scope, would not be prudent.
Nevertheless, there is flexibility for individuals to withdraw their Central Provident Fund (CPF) savings, including MediSave, in certain circumstances, such as if they have reduced life expectancy or are terminally ill. This cash can then go towards meeting their various needs. In addition, any remaining MediSave funds of deceased CPF members are distributed to their nominees in cash, allowing full flexibility of use. There are also welfare organisations that help with the funeral expenses of those in need.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Waiving Polyclinic Doctors' Memo Fees for SG Enable Schemes and Grants Applications","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health whether the doctor's memo fee for certifying the medical status of a patient to qualify for the schemes and grants administered by SG Enable may be waived at polyclinics.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Writing a medical memo requires the doctor's time and effort to review and summarise the patient's medical status. A fee is therefore charged at the polyclinics for these memos.
As a matter of principle, we do not waive charges across the board for polyclinic services, which are already heavily subsidised. However, patients who need more support are able to apply for additional financial assistance. Agencies in charge of respective schemes may also assess whether to fully cover the charges for the schemes they administer.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Government Investment in Healthcare Technology R&D in Last Three Years and Support for Research Cooperation between Clinicians and Engineers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) how much has the Government committed to research and development of technology-enabled and technology-enhanced care for the elderly and disabled in the last three years; and (b) what support is in place to bring together and facilitate research cooperation between clinicians and engineers.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: We do not track the numbers as the Member has requested. That said, significant funding is available under the Research, Innovation and Enterprise Plan, especially in the Human Health and Potential Domain, which goes towards funding research in population health, and healthy and meaningful longevity research.
There are many research collaborations between clinicians and other professionals, including engineers, from academia and industry through a range of support structures and initiatives. The Open Fund – Large Collaborative Grant encourages interdisciplinary partnerships across institutions to leverage Singapore's full spectrum of research capabilities. There are also many open innovation platforms and programmes that bring together clinicians with industry partners and engineering talent to accelerate the development, translation and implementation of clinical innovations collaboratively.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Scaling Supply of Ambulatory Services by Partnering Private Service Operators to Meet Demands of Growing Ageing Population","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health in view of the high demand for the ambulatory services offered by the Agency for Integrated Care (a) whether the Ministry will work with private service operators to provide services at subsidised rates; and (b) how does the Ministry ensure that the provision of ambulatory services islandwide will be able to keep up with our ageing population growth.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Agency for Integrated Care refers eligible seniors to subsidised ambulatory services in the community, such as Community Rehabilitation and Day Care. We are working with a range of partners and providers from the private and non-profit sector to provide the bulk of such services. We are currently undertaking a significant effort to coordinate such services with other community services such as Active Ageing Centres and enhanced Home Personal Care services, so that seniors can transit from one setting to another smoothly, and the system operates more efficiently. The Ministry of Health will continue to review and adjust the capacity for Community Rehabilitation and Day Care to ensure seniors' needs are met.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Healthcare Research Funding Allocation under RIE by Disease Area, Research Theme and Programme Type","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health regarding the $2.4 billion which has been committed to healthcare research under the national Research, Innovation and Enterprise plans, whether the Ministry will publish a detailed breakdown of the funding allocation by disease area, research theme, and programme type.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The annual healthcare research funding allocations by programme type are published on the Ministry of Health's (MOH's) website1. MOH does not publish detailed funding allocations by disease area and research theme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : https://www.moh.gov.sg/others/resources-and-statistics/medical-research"],"footNoteQuestions":["19"],"questionNo":"19"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Integrating Depression and Suicide Prevention Screenings into Primary Care Visits for Seniors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Mr David Hoe asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether there are initiatives to integrate depression and suicide prevention screenings into primary care visits for seniors; and (b) whether such screenings can be made opt-out rather than opt-in.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Internationally, there is insufficient evidence to recommend routine screening for depression and suicide in asymptomatic adults. Doctors are trained to follow up on seniors' presenting medical complaints or symptoms. If there are signs of depression or suicide ideation, they will address accordingly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Singaporeans Using MediSave for Family Members by Income Profile and Potential Risk of Insufficient MediSave Funds","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Mr Ng Chee Meng asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health in the past three years (a) how many Singaporeans have used their MediSave for family members; (b) what is the income profile of this group of Singaporeans; and (c) whether they are at risk of having insufficient MediSave for their own expenses.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: On average, around 210,000 Singaporeans across a range of income profiles used their MediSave for their family members annually between 2022 and 2024.
Singaporeans primarily use MediSave for their individual healthcare needs rather than for their family members. Risk of MediSave inadequacy, if any, is more likely to stem from their own healthcare needs. Regardless, there is support for Singaporeans with lower MediSave balances, such as Government top-ups and Additional Premium Support for national insurance schemes.
Those who exhaust their MediSave balances and face financial difficulties with their healthcare bills at public healthcare institutions are also supported through our safety nets, such as MediFund. No one will lose coverage to appropriate care 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":"Annual Applicant Rejection Rates for Government Mental Health Support Networks and Reasons for Rejection","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) since their inception, what is the yearly average number of applicants who have been rejected by Government-affiliated mental health support networks like (i) Community Outreach Teams (CREST), (ii) Community Intervention Teams (COMIT), (iii) Youth Community Outreach Teams (CREST-Youth) and (iv) Youth Integrated Teams (YIT); and (b) what are the reasons given for rejection, if any.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Community Mental Health Teams do not reject walk-ins or referred individuals. The teams will assess clients' mental health needs and refer them to other services where appropriate or indicated. In 2024, 316 clients were referred to hospitals and other services for reasons such as severe mental health conditions, need for specialised care and client's preference to change services.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Health Risks of Tick-borne Diseases in Singapore and Mitigating Spread of Diseases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) how prevalent are tick-borne diseases in Singapore; (b) what are the health risks associated with such diseases; and (c) whether there plans by the Ministry to mitigate the risks of tick-borne diseases spreading among the population as green spaces are expanded in Singapore.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Tick-borne diseases, such as Lyme disease and severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome, are not common in Singapore. As Singapore is a travel and transportation hub, there is a risk of tick-borne diseases among travellers from countries where the pathogens have been recorded. However, the risk of sustained community transmission in Singapore is low.
Tick-borne diseases often present with non-specific symptoms including fever, muscle aches and rash, and, if left untreated, can result in severe complications. As such, the Communicable Diseases Agency (CDA) educates travellers on preventing tick-borne diseases while abroad, and travellers who fall ill upon return should seek medical treatment. In partnership with the National Parks Board and the National Environment Agency, CDA adopts a One Health approach to conduct surveillance and research of tick-borne diseases in Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strategies to Encourage Singaporeans to Update COVID-19 Vaccinations amid Dominance of XFG Variant","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health in view of the COVID-19 XFG variant being the predominant strain of COVID-19 infections in Singapore with high transmissibility and increased ability to evade immunity, whether more needs to be done to encourage Singaporeans to ensure that their COVID-19 vaccinations are up to date.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The XFG variant is a descendant of the Omicron variant. There is no evidence to suggest that XFG causes more severe illness or deaths compared to previous variants.
Given that COVID-19 is now an endemic disease, the Ministry of Health (MOH) had adjusted our vaccination recommendations over time. Vaccination is recommended for individuals (a) aged 60 years and above; (b) medically vulnerable individuals aged six months and above; and (c) residents of aged care facilities. Other individuals aged six months and above can also receive the COVID-19 vaccine.
To make vaccination convenient, it is offered at more than 600 general practitioner clinics and 10 polyclinics across the island. It continues to be free under the COVID-19 National Vaccination Programme. To enhance convenience for seniors, mobile vaccination teams continue to be deployed to selected heartland locations and care facilities. MOH will also send SMS invitations to eligible seniors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Seniors Aged 65 and Above Living Alone and Plans for New Initiatives to Prevent Unattended Deaths","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what is the updated number of seniors aged 65 and above who are living alone, as of 2025; and (b) whether there are any new Government-led initiatives beyond active ageing programmes and befriending activities, to further prevent cases of seniors dying alone.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: In 2024, around 87,000 residents aged 65 and above were living alone.
To prevent incidences of seniors dying alone at home, there needs to be an active befriending programme in the community. The Silver Generation Office's work with grassroots volunteers and outreach by Active Ageing Centres are significant efforts to address this and other issues relating to ageing. We will continue to build up outreach efforts through these initiatives.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Engaging US Government on FTA Immigration Commitments and Advocating for Rights of Singaporeans with US Visas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the Government has been engaging the United States government on (i) maintaining its obligations under the United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement in relation to immigration, such as the H-1B1 visa, and (ii) protecting the rights and privileges of Singaporean holders of US visas.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: The H-1B1 visa programme applies to foreign skilled labour from Singapore under the United States (US)-Singapore Free Trade Agreement. There are no changes to H-1B1 processes at this time. The US Embassy in Singapore has stated that the US' Presidential Proclamation on 19 September 2025, which imposes a new Restriction on Entry and fee under the H-1B visa programme, is separate from and does not apply to the H-1B1 visa programme for Singapore Citizens. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) will continue to monitor this issue and engage our US counterparts as required, as we regularly do on a broad range of issues.
To date, MFA is not aware of bona fide Singaporean holders of valid US visas whose rights and privileges have been affected by recent immigration enforcement actions in the US. Nonetheless, Singaporeans should take note that possession of a valid US visa does not guarantee automatic entry into the country nor one's stay for the entire validity period of the visa. Singaporeans should also be aware that each country determines its own immigration policies, including policies applicable to existing visa holders.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore's Diplomatic Expansion Strategies in Africa and Latin America","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) which countries in Africa and Latin America will the Ministry be setting up new diplomatic missions in the coming years; (b) what are the key considerations for establishing a resident mission as opposed to utilising a non-resident ambassador to conduct diplomacy; and (c) whether there are concurrent plans to accredit non-resident ambassadors to more countries.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: We continually evaluate the network of Overseas Missions that Singapore maintains, based on factors such as where they can most effectively advance Singapore's interests in these regions. We currently have 53 Overseas Missions around the world.
In view of our resource and manpower constraints, we supplement our overseas presence with the appointment of Non-Resident Ambassadors (NRAs) who travel regularly to engage foreign governments. NRAs, drawn from diverse backgrounds such as the private sector and academia, have been instrumental in representing Singapore and advancing our interests.
We will consider the establishment of more Overseas Missions according to national needs and the resources available.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore-ASEAN Collaboration on Regional Disaster Management Capacity Building","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs in light of the recent natural disasters in the Philippines, whether Singapore is exploring together with ASEAN, longer-term forms of support for disaster-prone countries in the region, including technical assistance, capacity-building and training in disaster management and climate resilience.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Beyond the immediate humanitarian assistance that we provide bilaterally to fellow Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries, there are ASEAN mechanisms that enhance the region's emergency preparedness and resilience against natural disasters which Singapore participates actively in. This includes the ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response (AADMER), which is a regional framework for cooperation, coordination, technical assistance and resource mobilisation in disaster management.
Singapore contributes actively to the ASEAN Committee on Disaster Management (ACDM), which provides leadership in the implementation of the AADMER, including capacity building and sharing of best practices.
Singapore hosts the annual ASEAN Strategic Policy Dialogue on Disaster Management, which brings together senior officials and leading technical experts to address challenges in ASEAN's disaster management landscape. In addition, Singapore is the co-chair of the ICT Advisory Group on Disaster Management of the ACDM, led by the ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on disaster management.
Under the Singapore Cooperation Programme, Singapore conducts capacity building programmes on disaster risk reduction and climate resilience, working closely with international partners, such as the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effects of US Peace Initiatives and Israeli Military Actions on Singapore's Diplomatic Efforts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Mr Lee Hong Chuang asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) how does the Ministry evaluate the effects of US peace initiatives and Israeli military actions on Singapore's interest and regional stability; (b) how does Singapore navigate between its humanitarian obligations and its relationship with Israel; and (c) whether the Ministry will provide more frequent updates on Singapore's diplomatic efforts as situations involving major international partners continue to evolve.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: The United States (US) is the superpower with indispensable leverage in the Middle East. We commend the efforts of the US and its partners Qatar, Egypt and Türkiye, which have played a crucial role in securing a ceasefire in Gaza and release of hostages.
Singapore and Singaporeans have contributed S$24 million worth of humanitarian assistance to alleviating the suffering of civilians in Gaza. These efforts have been facilitated by our excellent relations with partners in the region, including Israel, Jordan, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.
We will continue to keep Singaporeans updated on the complex situation in the Middle East.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Illegal Hawker Stall Subletting on Food Affordability and Ensuring Fair Access for New Entrants","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Mr Gabriel Lam asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Government has studied the impact of illegal hawker stall subletting on food affordability, particularly if higher hidden rents are passed on to consumers; (b) how have such practices affect younger aspiring hawkers seeking entry into the trade; and (c) what targeted measures are planned to preserve fair access for new entrants.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The National Environment Agency (NEA) takes a firm stance against subletting to prevent stallholders from engaging in rent-seeking behavior. If left unchecked, subletting could have an impact on operating costs and food affordability. NEA conducts regular inspections and issues warnings to stallholders found to be not personally operating their stall. Recalcitrant stallholders will be issued termination notices and could be barred from renting other hawker stalls. Stallholders and members of the public who suspect any subletting activities are encouraged to report them to NEA.
NEA ensures a robust channel for stall allocation to new entrants through an open and transparent stall bidding system for NEA-managed hawker centres, and monitors bids closely to identify anomalies. Prospective tenderers are informed upfront that they must personally operate their stalls and are not allowed to sublet. These restrictions are also clearly stated in the tenancy agreement between NEA and stallholders.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Employment of Local Graduates of IHLs and Aquaculture CET Programmes in Sea-based Fish Farm Industry","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry has data on the proportion of local workers in the sea-based fish farm section who are graduates of local Institutes of Higher Learning or Continuing Education and Training programmes relevant to aquaculture; and (b) what proportion of these graduates are currently employed by existing farms that have received funding under the Agri-Food Cluster Transformation Fund.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Singapore Food Agency does not collect data on the number of graduates from local Institutes of Higher Learning or relevant Continuing Education Training Programmes who have joined sea-based fish farms or recipients of the Agri-Food Cluster Transformation Fund.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Illegitimate Births and Subsequent Adoptions since 2020 and Destigmatisation Measures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how many births in Singapore since 2020 have been classified as illegitimate; (b) how many of these children have been subsequently adopted by their biological parents; (c) what is the average duration of the adoption process in these cases; and (d) what actions, if any, does the Government intend to take to reduce the stigma surrounding illegitimate children.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: A non-marital birth refers to a child born to parents who are not legally married to each other at the time of the child's birth. Under the Legitimacy Act 1934, a child of a non-marital birth is not considered legitimate, unless the parents subsequently marry each other or the child is adopted. From 2020 to 2024, there were, on average, about 745 non-marital live births per year to Singapore citizen mothers in Singapore.
Of the non-marital live births from 2020 to 2024, 12 children were subsequently adopted by their biological parents within the same period. As part of the adoption proceedings, the Ministry of Social and Family Development's (MSF's) Guardian-in-Adoption conducts social investigations to assess the safety and well-being of the child within the prospective adoptive family. The duration of the social investigation is typically about nine months, provided there are no complicating factors.
Every child, regardless of their parents' marital status, deserves to be valued, supported and given equal opportunities to thrive. The Government recognises that children of single unwed parents may face stigma and is committed to fostering an inclusive and caring society. In schools, through the Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) Curriculum, students learn empathy and respect for all, regardless of their family backgrounds. Our teachers nurture a caring and enabling school environment and are sensitive to the socio-emotional needs of all children, including those who require additional support because of their family circumstances. The Government also does not differentiate benefits that support Singapore Citizen children's growth and development based on their parents' marital status. These benefits include subsidies for education, healthcare, childcare and infant care, as well as the migrant domestic worker levy concession. Single unwed parents do not need to adopt their own children to qualify for these Government benefits.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown on Preschools Using In-house Cooks, Ready-to-eat Meals and Catered Hot Food","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what is the current breakdown of the number of preschools that use (i) in-house cooks (ii) ready-to-eat meals and (iii) catered hot food.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: \tThe Early Childhood Development Agency does not track the breakdown of food provision arrangements in preschools. All preschools, regardless of food provision arrangements, must adhere to meals and food hygiene requirements specified in the Early Childhood Development Centres Regulations and Code of Practice. This includes ensuring that food premises are clean and pest-free, and implementing proper procedures for food storage.
34 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Minister for Social and Family Development over the last nine months, what is the breakdown of the number of food poisoning cases in preschools that are operated (i) under the Anchor Operator Scheme, (ii) under the Partner Operator Scheme and (iii) privately.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: There have been eight investigations conducted into gastroenteritis outbreaks in preschools in the past nine months, which may be viral or foodborne.
The Early Childhood Development Agency does not monitor the number of food poisoning cases by scheme. All preschools, regardless of schemes, must adhere to health and hygiene requirements specified in the Early Childhood Development Centres Regulations and Code of Practice. This includes disinfection of contaminated surfaces and monitoring of symptoms in the event of suspected or known gastroenteritis cases. This helps to safeguard children's health and limit the impact of a gastroenteritis outbreak in preschools.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tracking Outcomes and Equity of Government-funded Social Service Programmes and Impacts on Policy Modifications","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what monitoring and evaluation frameworks are used to track the outcomes and equity of Government-funded social service programmes; and (b) whether findings from these assessments have informed recent policy modifications.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) monitors outcomes at both the macro and programme level. At the macro level, we analyse key population outcomes, such as social mobility trends, marriage and cohort dissolution rates, and preschool cohort enrolment rate, to ensure progress in our social outcomes.
At the programme level, we monitor various key performance indicators, ranging from process, output, to outcome indicators, to ensure that programme objectives are met. This also includes reviewing if our programmes effectively reach clients who require the support. Certain programmes are also subject to more rigorous evaluation, using appropriate research methodologies.
For example, MSF had partnered the Centre for Evidence and Implementation to conduct an evaluation study of KidSTART. The study found that parents and caregivers who received KidSTART home visitation had more positive, quality parent-child interactions and were more confident to support their children's development. KidSTART children also showed improved child development outcomes and more prosocial behaviours by three years old. These findings, which were made public at the 2024 Asian Family Conference organised by MSF, contributed to the policy decision to scale KidSTART nationwide, as well as programme refinements.
To enhance outcome measurement and reporting in the social service sector, the National Council of Social Service (NCSS) launched the Sector Evaluation Framework in 2021. The framework provides a common language for different stakeholders in the sector to measure programme outcomes, track progress of service users and articulate impact. NCSS recently published the first Youth Development Outcomes Report that compared the efficacy of nine different youth programmes, which demonstrated the importance of programme fidelity in achieving outcomes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Unauthorised Use of CDA Withdrawals at Optical Shops and Retail Pharmacies for Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Mr Gabriel Lam asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) in the past five years, how many cases of unauthorised Child Development Account (CDA) withdrawals at optical shops and retail pharmacies have been identified; (b) what recovery actions have been taken; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider putting in place safeguards to prevent future misuse while continuing to allow the use of CDA at these retail shops.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: In the past five years, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) identified about 1,600 unauthorised Child Development Account (CDA) transactions at optical shops and retail pharmacies.
MSF has sought refunds for the unauthorised transaction amounts to be returned to the children's CDA. Where the misuse of CDA moneys was egregious, with suspected fraudulent and criminal intent, MSF reported such cases to the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD).
Given the high risk of misuse of CDA monies at optical shops and retail pharmacies, feedback from merchants on the challenges of implementing effective point-of-sales checks in retail environments and the very low usage of CDA at these establishments, MSF will discontinue CDA usage at retail pharmacies and optical shops from 1 January 2026. Parents can tap on other Government support schemes, such as the Baby Bonus Cash Gift and Child LifeSG Credits, for purchases at these establishments. 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":"Assessing Feasibility of National Toy and Board Game Lending Service and Integration into NLB Network","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"37 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information in respect of Punggol's Toy Library which offers educational toys for kids to play with free-of-charge but does not lend toys (a) what is the Ministry's assessment of public demand for a national toy and board-game lending service to reduce costs and consumption; and (b) what feasibility studies have been conducted to examine integrating a toy-lending system into the NLB network.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Toy Library is a new service piloted at Punggol Library as part of the National Library Board's (NLB's) aim to provide accessible learning resources and foster community connections through its network of public libraries. NLB's current focus remains on promoting reading and literacy in children. To support this aim, it offers lending and book delivery services. There are no plans to provide a toy-lending service.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Combating Online Xenophobia Targeting New Citizens through Stronger Digital Regulations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"38 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what measures are in place to address online hate speech and xenophobic abuse targeted at new citizens; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider stronger enforcement or legislative action to deter such behaviour and ensure a safe and inclusive digital environment.
Mrs Josephine Teo: We deal with hate and offensive speech against new citizens in the same way as those born here.
Under the Broadcasting Act, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) can direct Internet Content Providers (ICPs) to take down material that is against national harmony or direct online communication services to disable access to egregious content, including content likely to cause racial or religious disharmony in Singapore.
In addition, there are criminal laws to deal with speech that could wound racial or religious feelings. For example, under the Penal Code, it is an offence to commit acts that promote enmity between different racial groups or that are prejudicial to the maintenance of racial harmony. If these acts are perpetuated online, the Online Criminal Harms Act allows the Government to restrict access of Singapore users to such content. In 2019, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA) was also amended to strengthen the Government's ability to respond effectively to threats against religious harmony in the digital age. There are similar provisions under the MRHA passed earlier this year.
The Ministry of Digital Development and Information and the Ministry of Law will soon table 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, incitement of enmity or violence against any group), to seek timely relief from perpetrators and platforms.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Review Continuation of Specialised Schools for Full Subject-based Banding","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"39 Mr David Hoe asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry has reviewed or plans to review the continued relevance of specialised schools, such as Crest and Spectra Secondary Schools in view of the implementation of full subject-based banding; (b) whether students in these schools who show aptitude in certain subjects can take them at G2-level; and (c) whether these schools are currently resourced to support such differentiated offerings.
Mr Desmond Lee: Crest Secondary School and Spectra Secondary School offer a specialised curriculum for students who are inclined towards practice-oriented and hands-on learning, and are eligible for the Posting Group 1 or Posting Group 1/2 option band.
Even with the implementation of Full Subject-Based Banding, these two schools remain relevant in our secondary school landscape as they have unique offerings that cater to students with different learning styles.
Students at these schools offer both Secondary Education Certificate (SEC) subjects and the Institute of Technical Education Skills Subject Certificate. They can offer some SEC subjects at G2, depending on their aptitude and interests.
Given their specialised curriculum and student profile, these schools receive a higher level of resourcing to support their students, including more funding and better teacher to student ratios.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data Collection and Categorisation of Causes of Individual Bankruptcies in Last 10 Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"40 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Law (a) what are the top five causes of individual bankruptcies in the past 10 years, including business failure; (b) how is such data collected and categorised; (c) if such data is not available, would the Ministry consider collecting them; and (d) how do we maintain a healthy risk-taking entrepreneurial culture while not indulging those who are financially reckless or irresponsible.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The top five causes of bankruptcy in the past 10 years were business failure, overspending on consumer goods and services, loss of income due to unemployment or retrenchment, liability due to guarantees and low income. This information is self-declared by debtors in their Statement of Affairs (SA), either in their bankruptcy application or upon their being made bankrupt on a creditor's application. When filling up the SA, the debtor selects the most applicable cause of insolvency from a drop-down list.
To foster a vibrant, innovation-led environment for entrepreneurs to thrive, the Government has introduced a comprehensive range of schemes and programmes to support our local startups and encourage innovation. These include mentorships from Accredited Mentor Partners, grants to entrepreneurs, talent support and providing startups with spaces to meet the needs of promising founders and startup enablers and help them grow. To encourage healthy and responsible entrepreneurship, it is important that our entrepreneurs make sound financing decisions and have a stake in the outcome. For example, the Startup SG Founder grant requires a dollar-for-dollar matching by entrepreneurs.
The Ministry of Law also regularly reviews the bankruptcy regime, which strikes a balance between the interests of persons seeking to engage in business activity and financial responsibility.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Debts Repaid to Creditors of Bankruptcy Estates in Last 10 Years and Plans to Enhance Creditor Recovery","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"41 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Law (a) what percentage of proven debts have been repaid to creditors of bankruptcy estates administered in the past 10 years; (b) how does this compare to creditor recovery under the Debt Repayment Scheme (DRS); and (c) whether the Government has any plans to further enhance creditor recovery, under the DRS or otherwise, so that creditors can support the rehabilitation of bankrupts.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The percentage of proven debts that have been repaid in bankruptcy cases varies from case to case and depends on factors such as the circumstances in which the bankruptcy took place and other extraneous factors, as well as the subsequent recovery (or otherwise) of the bankrupt. The corresponding percentage for cases under the Debt Repayment Scheme (DRS) has been comparatively more favourable given that the DRS applies in cases where the debtor has a regular income and where the unsecured debt does not exceed $150,000.
The DRS benefits both the debtor, who can avoid bankruptcy if he meets his obligations under the Scheme, and his creditors, who will receive no less than what they would have otherwise received had the debtor gone into bankruptcy. The Ministry of Law has regular dialogues with creditors to ensure that the debtors' repayment plans under the DRS continue to be viable.
While the Official Assignee will make reasonable efforts to help creditors recover debt, it is necessary to balance creditors' interest against allowing bankrupts and debtors to make a fresh start in their financial affairs. We encourage lenders to exercise prudence in extending credit.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Updated Nominal Basic Monthly Wages for Full-time Employed Residents by Deciles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"42 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower what is the most recent nominal basic monthly wages, excluding employer CPF, among full-time employed residents by deciles.
Dr Tan See Leng: The nominal basic monthly income from employment (excluding employer Central Provident Fund contributions) of full-time resident employees aged 15 and over in 2024 are provided in Table 1 below.
The Ministry of Manpower publishes data on gross wages regularly. Gross wages provide a comprehensive view of total compensation from employment and are the best reflection of wage outcomes, as they include overtime pay, commissions, allowances and bonuses.
43 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower based on the OECD's definition of low-pay incidence (the share of workers earning less than two-thirds of median earnings) (a) what is the incidence of low pay in Singapore; and (b) how does this compare with the average incidence across OECD countries.
Dr Tan See Leng: Singapore's proportion of full-time employed residents earning less than two-thirds of median wage was about 30% in 2024. This is higher than the average of 13% across Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries based on the latest available 2023 data. While these countries may have a lower share of workers earning less than two-thirds of median wage in comparison to Singapore, many of them also have higher unemployment and lower labour force participation rates. Furthermore, lower-wage workers in Singapore can benefit from Government transfers, such as income top-ups through Workfare and other forms of support, which are not accounted for in the OECD's definition.
Singapore has made headway in improving wage outcomes for lower-wage workers. From 2021 to 2024, real gross monthly income at the 20th percentile rose by 6.3% cumulatively compared to real median wages which rose by 3.2%.
Tripartite partners will press on with efforts to uplift lower-wage workers in the coming years, including through meaningful and sustainable wage increases through the Progressive Wage Model. The National Wages Council also recommends higher wage growth for lower-wage workers annually to narrow the wage gap between lower-wage and median-wage workers. Through these efforts, we will continue to support strong wage growth for lower-wage workers in line with the tripartite ambition to uplift lower-wage workers and support their well-being.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification on Defining Section 126B(aa) of Employment Act 1968 towards Errant Employers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"44 Ms Gho Sze Kee asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider clarifying and defining the administrative penalties under section 126B(aa) of the Employment Act 1968 for breaches of section 96A, given that failures by employers to furnish retrenchment information are declared civil contraventions under section 126A(aa), which attracts no criminal liability and may lack sufficient deterrent effect.
Dr Tan See Leng: Employers are required to submit to the Ministry of Manpower a Mandatory Retrenchment Notification (MRN) within five working days after giving the retrenchment notice to their employees. There are penalties for failing to submit MRN, delay in submitting MRN and providing incomplete or inaccurate information under the Employment (Administrative Penalties) Regulations 2016; specifically, $1,000 for the first contravention and $2,000 for subsequent contravention.
Generally, when deciding whether to position a breach of the law as a civil contravention or an offence, several factors are taken into consideration, including whether the breach is one of strict liability or a technical breach of a rule.
An employer who continues to not submit MRNs may be subject to a criminal offence if he does not comply with a direction issued by an authorised officer under section 126D of the Employment Act. Such directions can be issued to the employer (in lieu of or in addition to the contravention notice) to bring the contravention to an end and to require the employer to take such action to remedy, mitigate or eliminate any effects of the contravention and to prevent its recurrence. It is an offence if the employer fails to comply with that direction, with a fine of up to $5,000 or imprisonment of up to six months or both.
Nonetheless, the majority of employers are compliant with the MRN requirements, with 70% having submitted on time between January 2021 to June 2025.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Current Breakdown of Resident and Foreign Full-time Workers across Industry Sectors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"45 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower what is current the breakdown of full-time workers in each industry sector, by the share of resident workers and foreign workers.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower publishes data on the breakdown of resident and foreign workers by industry on its website. Information by full-time and part-time status is available for resident workers only, as such data is not collected for foreign workers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Wage Targets for Lower-income Full-time Resident Workers and Compliance with National Wages Council's Recommendations by Sector and Profitability","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"46 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower regarding policies to uplift lower-wage workers and narrow wage gaps between low wage and median income workers, whether the Ministry will consider publishing (a) wage targets for full-time resident workers at the 5th, 10th, 15th and 20th percentile, relative to the median wage; and (b) the rate of compliance with the National Wages Council's lower-wage recommendations, by sector and profitability.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower, together with tripartite partners, remains committed to support the narrowing of the wage gap between lower-wage workers and the median worker as recommended by the 2021 Tripartite Workgroup on Lower-Wage Workers.
From 2021 to 2024, real gross monthly income of full-time employed residents at the 20th percentile rose cumulatively by 6.3%, higher than the median worker at 3.2%, in line with the commitment set out by the tripartite partners in 2021. The tripartite partners had not set out wage targets for workers at specific percentiles.
The rates of compliance with the National Wages Council's lower-wage recommendations by sector and business prospects are published as part of the Ministry's annual report on \"Wage Practices for Lower-Wage Employees and Forward Expectations of Establishments\".
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Utilisation Rates of Overseas Markets Immersion Programme Funding by SMEs and Supporting Access to Funding","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"47 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for Manpower what proportion of the Overseas Markets Immersion Programme's budget has been utilised by SMEs to date under the programme; and (b) what specific support measures are in place to ensure that SMEs can effectively access the programme.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Overseas Markets Immersion Programme (OMIP) aims to encourage companies to send local employees with little or no overseas experience for overseas work postings. We have set aside $16 million over two years to support up to 250 local employees for this programme. Since OMIP was rolled out in 2024, more than 70 locals have been posted overseas and more than 75% of the companies that have participated in the programme are SMEs.
OMIP is aimed at developing the local workforce and is open for application to both SME and non-SME companies. Companies that require support in their application may approach the Singapore Business Federation (SBF), our Programme Partner for OMIP, to receive tailored support and guidance in accessing OMIP. SBF conducts regular briefing sessions on OMIP's programme details and application procedures. We encourage all companies to leverage OMIP to develop their local workforce while supporting their internationalisation plans.
48 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Manpower to date, (a) what is the total number of platform workers undertaking food delivery; (b) how many are Singaporeans and Permanent Residents respectively as registered by platform operators; (c) how does the Ministry ensure the number of foreigners undertaking food delivery work does not affect the incomes of local platform workers; and (d) how does it track the ratio of local and foreign platform workers.
Dr Tan See Leng: In 2024, there were 15,300 Singapore residents who regularly worked as delivery platform workers, covering both food and parcel delivery services. They comprise 13,400 Singapore Citizens and 1,900 Permanent Residents (PRs). The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) does not track the number of platform workers undertaking food delivery specifically, as platform workers have the flexibility to undertake different types of delivery jobs, such as food or parcel delivery or both. Only Singaporeans and PRs can be platform workers, as MOM does not issue Work Passes for foreigners in this sector. MOM will take enforcement action against any foreigners found working illegally as platform workers, and the local platform workers who abet them.
While platform operators can legitimately outsource jobs to third-party logistics companies who may hire foreigners with valid Work Passes, the number of foreigners is capped at the industry's dependency ratio ceiling. These foreigners are not platform workers and can only work for a single employer under an employer-employee relationship. They are also paid a fixed monthly salary by their parent company and are not remunerated on a per-job basis by the platform operator.
The Government will continue to work closely with platform work associations, tripartite partners, and platform operators to support the well-being and livelihoods of our platform workers. As part of the Platform Workers Trilateral Group's recommendations, food delivery platform operators that outsource jobs have agreed to (a) provide more clarity and assurance to platform workers on their outsourcing practices; (b) encourage platform workers to head to high demand areas to reduce the need to outsource jobs; and (c) require outsourced companies to submit foreign workers' Work Pass documentation and conduct audits where work is outsourced through their app.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Employment Pass Holders and New EPs Issued by Years of Working Experience over Last 10 Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"49 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Manpower for each year over the last 10 years, what is the breakdown of (i) Employment Pass (EP) holders and (ii) new EPs issued, categorised by years of working experience in five-year bands.
Dr Tan See Leng: The breakdown of Employment Pass (EP) holders and new EPs1 issued by years of working experience (whether in Singapore or overseas), as declared by their employers in their EP applications, is shown in Tables 1 and 2 respectively.
50 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for National Development in view of the estimates of 13,000 to 60,000 free-roaming cats, (a) what population figure underpins the planning of the Trap-Neuter-Rehome/Release-Manage (TNRM) Programme; (b) how does current sterilisation rate compares with estimated annual kitten births; (c) when will sterilisation outpace reproduction; and (d) what is the target sterilisation percentage for community cats.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: There are around 13,000 free-roaming cats in publicly accessible areas in Singapore. The National Parks Board targets to achieve a sterilisation rate of at least 70% by end-2030 to manage the population sustainably.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Consideration in Extending Electrical Wiring Checks under Home Improvement Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"51 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB can (i) extend electrical wiring checks under the Home Improvement Programme and Enhancement for Active Seniors beyond circuit breakers, water heaters and light switches to cover general wiring for the whole flat (ii) incorporate such checks at other upgrading milestones and (iii) co-fund rewiring works where fire risks are found, to provide greater safety and assurance for seniors.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The electrical wiring checks under the Home Improvement Programme and the Enhancement for Active Seniors programme prioritise key electrical components such as the Residual Current Circuit Breakers and water heaters, as the risk of electrical hazards is higher if these installations are non-compliant.
Fires of electrical origin may also be related to user behaviour, such as overloading of electrical sockets and use of uncertified electrical devices. Flat owners are encouraged to refer to the Energy Market Authority's website for tips to keep themselves and their families safe from electrical-related accidents.
Residents that face electrical wiring issues beyond those covered by the Housing and Development Board's (HDB's) upgrading programmes should engage a Licensed Electrical Worker to assess and rectify the issues. HDB can also help to refer residents to the People's Association or social service agencies if they require financial assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Manage High-risk Individuals Exhibiting Violence towards Animals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"52 Mr Gabriel Lam asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether rehabilitation programmes addressing violent behaviour towards animals are offered to offenders; (b) how does the Ministry coordinates with Animal and Veterinary Service, Institute of Mental Health and community partners to manage such high-risk individuals; and (c) whether mandatory counselling or therapy can be imposed in addition to jail terms or fines.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Courts may decide to impose a Mandatory Treatment Order, which requires the offender to undergo psychiatric treatment such as at the Institute of Mental Health, for animal cruelty and abuse cases.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Formal Tracking of Intergenerational Wealth Transfers in Resale Property Purchases towards Housing Affordability","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"53 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry formally tracks the proportion of private and HDB resale property purchases that are funded significantly by intergenerational wealth transfers; and (b) what is the Ministry's assessment of the impact of such wealth transfers on housing affordability in the private residential and HDB resale markets respectively.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The information which the Member asked for is not available.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Establishment of Mosques within Pasir Ris-Changi Group Representation Constituency","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"54 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Acting Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs whether, in addition to the upcoming mosque in Tampines North, there are any plans to establish new mosques within Pasir Ris-Changi GRC.
Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: The Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) regularly reviews the capacity of mosques across Singapore to ensure adequate provision of prayer spaces for the Muslim community.
There are currently no plans to build new mosques within Pasir Ris-Changi Group Representation Constituency (GRC). The community in the area is served by several mosques, including Al-Istighfar in Pasir Ris, Darul Ghufran in Tampines and Al-Taqua in Bedok, with the upcoming mosque in Tampines North providing additional capacity in the future. These mosques have also implemented multiple prayer sessions to manage peak demand on Fridays and during Hari Raya Prayers. MUIS remains committed to ensuring that the religious needs of the community are adequately met.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Potential Solution for Traffic Congestion in McNair and Towner Precinct due to Multiple Upcoming BTO Developments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"55 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether the Land Transport Authority can consider providing a right-turn from McNair Road onto Balestier Road towards the Central Expressway, given the likely increase in car traffic arising from multiple new BTO developments in the McNair and Towner precinct; and (b) if so, whether the right-turn can be constructed before mid-2026 before the congestion situation worsens.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Land Transport Authority will be providing a right-turn from McNair Road onto Balestier Road towards the Central Expressway, on top of other traffic enhancements, such as junction widening and lane extension. This is intended to support new Build-To-Order (BTO) developments in the McNair and Towner precinct. These enhancements are targeted to be rolled out before the new BTO developments, which will be completed from the first half of 2026.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Citizenship Demographics of Hired Bus Captains and Drivers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"56 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Acting Minister for Transport for each year from 2015 to 2024, how many bus captains and drivers across the public transport sector are (i) Singaporeans, (ii) Permanent Residents and (iii) foreigners, respectively.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The total number of bus captains has increased by about 9%, from around 8,900 in 2015 to around 9,700 in 2024. The nationality breakdown of bus captains has remained largely stable throughout this period, with the exception of the COVID-19 pandemic which saw a dip in the proportion of foreign bus captains. As of December 2024, around 28%, 15% and 57% of our bus captains are Singaporeans, Permanent Residents and foreign Work Pass holders respectively.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Long-term Cost-benefit Analysis of Singapore's Electrification Efforts on Bus Fares","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"57 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Acting Minister for Transport with the Government's increasing emphasis on electric vehicle fleet expertise in public bus tenders, (a) what is the Ministry's long-term cost-benefit analysis of accelerating this green transition; and (b) what safeguards are in place to ensure that the capital costs associated with electrification do not translate into significant fare increases for commuters over the next decade.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Besides contributing to Singapore's net zero emissions commitment, the transition of our public bus fleet to cleaner energy vehicles will improve air quality and public health of commuters. Currently, we are replacing only buses nearing end of life with electric buses. The life cycle costs of electric buses are similar to that of diesel buses, with higher procurement cost offset by lower fuel and maintenance expenses. As technology improves and costs continue to come down, we may be able to accelerate the transition to electric buses without a significant impact on the cost of providing public bus services or public transport fares.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Safety Measures to Prevent Maritime Collisions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"58 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Acting Minister for Transport arising from the findings of the Transport Safety Investigation Bureau on the causes of the collision between Vox Maxima and Marine Honour on 14 June 2024, what additional safety measures does the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore intend to implement to prevent the recurrence of such collisions, beyond the advisory on keeping a listening watch on the designated radio channels.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Ministry of Transport's Transport Safety Investigation Bureau's report on the allision of Vox Maxima and Marine Honour identified multiple causal factors and made six safety recommendations, all directed to the company managing Vox Maxima.
Separately, the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) has taken action against four crew members of the Vox Maxima who were convicted and fined under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 for failing to discharge their respective duties.
MPA has safety protocols in place for emergency response, especially in situations where there is a loss of electrical power on board. A similar allision scenario has been incorporated in the simulator training and assessment of MPA's harbour pilots. The \"Vessel's Checklist for Piloted Movements\", which must be completed before pilotage, has also been amended to include a new requirement for ship crews to ensure that their anchors can be readily let go in an emergency.
In the longer term, MPA is studying the feasibility of stationing harbour tugs at critical areas within the port to provide an additional layer of support for ships experiencing mechanical or electrical failures.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"CDC Vouchers Eligibility for Singaporean Citizens Staying at Nursing Homes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"59 Mr David Hoe asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth whether the People's Association will consider reviewing the eligibility rules for CDC vouchers for Singaporeans residing in nursing homes, in view that such residents currently share the same institutional address and may be excluded from receiving the vouchers.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I am answering in my capacity as the Minister charged with the responsibility for the People's Association. Every Singaporean household can only claim one set of Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers per tranche. Some Singaporean households might be unable to claim their CDC vouchers for a variety of reasons, for example, when more than one Singaporean household resides in the same rental address or their registered address is not a residential address.
The CDCs are working with the Ministry of Health (MOH) to facilitate the claiming of the vouchers by eligible Singaporeans in MOH-funded nursing homes by obtaining the necessary documentation from the homes for their appeal at the Community Centres or Clubs.
We will continue to work with the relevant Ministries to assist eligible residents to access benefits and support measures.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Minister for Manpower","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WS","content":"[(proc text) The following reply was given by the Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng) during Question Time at the Sitting of 15 October 2025: (proc text)]
The Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): We have not stopped reviewing this framework because we want to try to provide for the coverage for as long as possible. But we always have to balance between sustainability, affordability and also, ensuring that there is a sufficient sum left behind for the members to tap on when they are finally eligible for that payout, at age of 65 or 70, depending on how they choose.
With regard to the Member's point on the non-payment, those members whose DPS coverage lapsed, about 75% of them are aged above 55 years old. Many of them are no longer working, or they were self-employed persons before. Thus, they do not have Ordinary Account contributions which could be used to pay for those premiums. And for those whose DPS coverage lapsed as of 31 December 2022, around 40% of them have reinstated or they have started new cover as of 31 December 2024. So, this has to be taken against the broader numbers. Today, there are over two million Singaporeans and Permanent Residents who are covered under DPS. And amongst the active CPF members between the ages of 21 and 65, 86% are covered under DPS. So, that number, that 75%, is of that 16% that we are really talking about. [Please refer to \"Number of CPF Members Aged 65-67 Still in Employment and Review of Dependants' Protection Scheme to Increase Age Limit of 65\", Official Report, 15 October 2025, Vol 96, Issue 8, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Dr Tan See Leng circulated with leave of the Deputy Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)]
I wish to make the following factual clarifications to the speech made during the oral reply for Parliamentary Questions No 8 and No 9 at the Sitting of 15 October 2025. It should read as follows:
The Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): We have not stopped reviewing this framework because we want to try to provide for the coverage for as long as possible. But we always have to balance between sustainability, affordability and also, ensuring that there is a sufficient sum left behind for the members or their beneficiaries to receive, should they become eligible for that payout.
With regard to the Member's point on the non-payment, those members whose DPS coverage lapsed, about 75% of them are aged above 55 years old. Many of them are no longer working, or they were self-employed persons before. Thus, they do not have Ordinary Account contributions which could be used to pay for those premiums. And for those whose DPS coverage lapsed as of 31 December 2022, around 40% of them have reinstated or they have started new cover as of 31 December 2024. These lapses have to be taken against the broader numbers. Today, there are over two million Singaporeans and Permanent Residents who are covered under DPS. And amongst the active CPF members between the ages of 21 and 65, 86% are covered under DPS.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":6731,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Fadli Fawzi","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20251015/vernacular-15 Oct 2025 - Mr Fadli Fawzi - Electronic Conveyancing Bill.pdf","fileName":"15 Oct 2025 - Mr Fadli Fawzi - Electronic Conveyancing Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6732,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Hany Soh","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20251015/vernacular-Hany Soh Digital Conveyance15Oct2025 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Hany Soh Digital Conveyance15Oct2025 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6733,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Wan Rizal","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20251015/vernacular-15 Oct 2025 - Dr Wan Rizal - Electronic Conveyancing Bill.pdf","fileName":"15 Oct 2025 - Dr Wan Rizal - Electronic Conveyancing Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6734,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Lee Hui Ying","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20251015/vernacular-Lee Hui Ying E Conveyance 15Oct2025 -Chinese - Copy.pdf","fileName":"Lee Hui Ying E Conveyance 15Oct2025 -Chinese - Copy.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6735,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Ng Chee Meng","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20251015/vernacular-Ng Chee Meng CareShield 15Oct2025-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Ng Chee Meng CareShield 15Oct2025-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6736,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Alex Yam","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20251015/vernacular-Alex Yam CareShield 15Oct2025-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Alex Yam CareShield 15Oct2025-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6737,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Joan Pereira","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20251015/vernacular-Joan Pereira CareShield 15Oct2025 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Joan Pereira CareShield 15Oct2025 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6738,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Wan Rizal","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20251015/vernacular-15 Oct 2025 - Dr Wan Rizal - CareShield Life.pdf","fileName":"15 Oct 2025 - Dr Wan Rizal - CareShield Life.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}