Mr Speaker: Order. Oaths and Affirmations of Allegiance.
The two hon Members who are taking their Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance today will proceed to the Table to do so when their names are called.
[(proc text) The following Members took and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance, or made Affirmation of Allegiance, in the order below: (proc text)]
[(proc text) Mr Eric Chua (Queenstown) (proc text)]
[(proc text) Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied) (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Order. Election of Deputy Speakers.
The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, I propose that Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Xie Yao Quan be elected as Deputy Speakers of this Parliament.
I am confident that Mr de Souza and Mr Xie will bring to their roles a strong sense of duty and sound judgement. Both are deeply committed to good governance and impartiality to promote constructive, respectful debate across party lines in this House.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Punggol): Mr Speaker, I support the proposal.
Mr Speaker: Are there further proposals from hon Members?
There being no further proposal, I now declare that proposals for the Election of Deputy Speakers are closed.
And I congratulate the new Deputy Speakers, Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Xie Yao Quan, as my two new Deputy Speakers. [Applause.] I look forward to you supporting me in the discharge of my duties.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Retirement of Clerk of Parliament","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Hon Members, I wish to inform the House that our Clerk of Parliament, Ms Ng Sheau Jiuan, will retire on 23 September 2025, that is, tomorrow. This is after 33 years of distinguished service.
Ms Ng began her parliamentary career in 1992 and became our sixth – and first woman – Clerk of Parliament in 2005.
I first met her when I entered the House in 2006. From my early days as a new Member of Parliament, through my time as Deputy Speaker and now as Speaker, her patient guidance and deep knowledge of parliamentary procedures have been invaluable.
Renowned for her mastery of the Standing Orders, Ms Ng has served as the principal adviser to Speakers and Members with impartiality and meticulous care. She strengthened the work of various Committees, steered the House through the challenges of the pandemic and led the Secretariat through three decades of technological change, ensuring Parliament kept pace with the times. When in doubt about procedure, we and I do not turn to Mr Google. We all turn to Ms Ng.
As head of the Secretariat, her leadership has kept Parliament running seamlessly and enhanced Singapore’s profile through many international and regional conferences and meetings. Her legacy of excellence and innovation will endure.
I am also pleased to announce that Mr Siow Peng Han, our current Deputy Clerk since 2008, will succeed as Clerk of Parliament tomorrow, on 23 September 2025. I extend, on behalf of all Members, our heartiest congratulations to Mr Siow on his appointment.
Finally, on behalf of all Members and Speakers past and present, I convey our deepest gratitude to Ms Ng for her exemplary service and wish her every happiness in the next chapter of her life. Sheau Jiuan, we will miss your wise counsel and unwavering dedication. Thank you. [Applause.]
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, please allow me, on behalf of Members, to pay tribute to our Clerk of Parliament, Ms Ng Sheau Jiuan. Ms Ng joined the Parliamentary Service as an Assistant Clerk in 1992 and was appointed Clerk of Parliament in 2005.
As Clerk, she has seen us through more than two decades and six terms of Parliament, and worked with five Speakers and Leaders of the House. Through it all, she has been a constant and reliable presence in this House, whom Members have been able to turn to for guidance on Parliamentary procedure.
By nature, Ms Ng is unassuming. But that belies her great expertise, knowledge and capability. In the last 20 years, she has played a crucial role in ensuring that every Parliament Sitting runs smoothly.
To the Chamber and to the public, it appears as though this is effortless. But the reality is that it takes an enormous amount of the work behind the scenes to ensure that every Sitting runs smoothly, and this is due in very large part to the work of the Clerks, who have been ably overseen and guided by Ms Ng. Thanks to her tireless dedication, our Parliamentary proceedings run like clockwork, even when things hit a fever pitch during the frenzy of the Committee of Supply debates each year. This task has become even more challenging in recent years, with a higher number of Parliamentary Questions, Motions and other Parliamentary Business. Through it all, she has been the invisible hand behind the smooth proceedings that this House has enjoyed, notwithstanding the increasing workload and the massive amount of coordination required.
As Clerk of Parliament, Ms Ng has also been our foremost in-house expert on Parliamentary procedure and the Standing Orders. Her command of Parliamentary procedure is built on not only her wealth of experience but her legal training prior to joining the Parliamentary Service. And here, on a more personal note, I should mention that Ms Ng and I were classmates in law school, from the graduating cohort of 1986. I do not think that at that time, we both envisaged that we would end up in the same Chamber, but it has been a pleasure to work with her here. In law school, she was the same – friendly, diligent and always a pleasure to work with.
Ms Ng has also overseen key transformations of our Parliament over the last two decades. These include the livestreaming of Parliamentary proceedings, efforts to simplify the language used in Parliament and increased public outreach to demystify Parliament's work. What these initiatives have in common is Ms Ng's commitment to making Parliamentary proceedings more accessible to the public. She also personally oversaw the implementation of the improvements in the Members' Room, including the improved menu. So, Members know whom you have to thank for that.
Ms Ng has carried the heavy responsibilities of her office with a steady hand, a faithful heart and an enduring devotion to this House. On behalf of all Members, thank you Sheau Jiuan, for your 33 years of distinguished service. We wish you a fulfilling and thoroughly well-deserved retirement.
On behalf of all Members, I also wish to extend our warmest congratulations to Mr Siow Peng Han on his appointment as the new Clerk of Parliament, with effect from tomorrow. Mr Siow is no stranger to us, having served as Deputy Clerk since 2008. I have no doubt that we are in good hands with Mr Siow as Clerk for the 15th Parliament. [Applause.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore's Support in Humanitarian Aid for Critical Food Security Situation in Gaza Conflict and Review on Stance on Palestinian Statehood","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"1 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs with countries like the UK, France and Australia announcing plans to recognise Palestinian statehood at the UN General Assembly in September, whether Singapore is also reconsidering its position on the issue.
2 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) what additional humanitarian assistance is Singapore providing or considering to address the critical food security situation affecting children in the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict; and (b) what measures are Singapore or Singapore-based organisations supporting at the international level to facilitate the safe and unimpeded delivery of food and medical supplies to children and civilians in need.
3 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) how has Singapore conveyed its concerns regarding the humanitarian crisis in Gaza to the Israeli government; (b) what specific messages have been raised regarding the protection of civilians and the continuation of essential services, such as water and electricity; and (c) what is Israel's response to Singapore’s views.
4 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) whether there is an update on Singapore’s (i) diplomatic efforts in relation to the current crisis in Gaza and (ii) humanitarian assistance rendered and obstacles faced in its delivery; (b) what is the Government’s assessment of the prospects for a ceasefire; and (c) whether Singapore will consider increasing funds set aside for technical assistance for rebuilding once stability is achieved.
5 Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs how is Singapore working with the international community to ensure Israel abides by international law as its war against Hamas intensifies, impacting other countries in the Middle East like the recent attack in Qatar on 9 September 2025.
6 Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) whether the Government will consider convening an inter-ministry taskforce or involving Singaporeans to consolidate relief, rebuilding, and restructuring efforts for Gaza in a strategic manner; and (b) what other initiatives can be piloted by the Government to safeguard harmony and cohesion amongst different communities in Singapore, against the backdrop of the Gaza conflict.
\t\tThe Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Mr Speaker, I will be making a Ministerial Statement later on the situation in the Middle East. I seek your approval to answer all 13 Parliamentary Questions which have been filed on the same subject. These would be Question Nos 1 to 6 for oral answer and Question Nos 26 to 32 for written answer.
\tMr Speaker: I give my consent.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Vape-related Arrests Made, and Update on Enforcement, Preventive and Rehabilitative Measures for Tackling Vaping","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what prompted the recent inter-ministerial efforts to ban vaping; (b) how many individuals have been caught for vaping or possession offences from (i) January to June 2025 and (ii) July to August 2025; and (c) what are the Ministry's plans for the control of etomidate after its Class C classification expires on 28 February 2026.
8 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) how many vaping cases have been reported via (i) hotline and (ii) webform in 2025; (b) how many of such cases led to the identification of offenders; (c) how many of these are students; and (d) whether vape use has declined since the hotline and webform were introduced.
9 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health whether the Ministry can provide an update on the enforcement actions taken against the illegal sales of Kpods to Singapore residents through various online messaging platforms.
10 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health what additional preventive and rehabilitative measures will be introduced to deter youth vaping and to support those already affected.
11 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) how many persons have been arrested and charged with vape-related offences in the past three months; and (b) what percentage of such persons are below 25 years old; and (c) what are the recent measures by the authorities to stop the sale of e-vaporisers and components on encrypted messaging platforms.
\tThe Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 7 to 11 together? My response will also address written Parliamentary Questions (PQs), Question Nos 15 to 18 in today’s Order Paper, and similar questions raised by Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim1, Ms Poh Li San, Mr Sharael Taha, Dr Hamid Razak and Mr David Hoe2, scheduled for later Sittings. I would invite Members to seek clarifications, if need be. If the question has been addressed, it may not be necessary for Members to proceed with the questions for future Sittings.
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: E-vaporisers, which were primarily nicotine delivery devices, were banned in Singapore ever since it was introduced. In the first eight months of this year, the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) detected almost 10,000 cases of possession or use and 38 cases of supply of e-vaporisers. Amongst users, more than half are under 25 years old.
However, e-vaporisers now carry more dangerous substances, like etomidate, and controlled drugs. This was in fact one of the key considerations when we banned the supply and use of e-vaporisers years ago, and our fears have unfortunately come true. This year, HSA detected 70 cases of possession or use of etomidate e-vaporisers.
With e-vaporisers, the landscape of substance abuse has changed. We launched a whole-of-Government response, which we announced on 28 August 2025. The measures include the following.
First, curbing upstream import and supply. Over 2,800 online advertisements, including those found on messaging platforms, were removed between January and August this year. Platforms have a legal responsibility to detect and remove advertisements. Those with inadequate processes will face penalties, including fines and imprisonment, under the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act.
Second, enhance border enforcement. The HSA, Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA), Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) and Singapore Police Force (SPF) work closely to enforce against smuggling and syndicated activities at our borders. They are also sharing information with their foreign counterparts. Within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) today, Singapore, Brunei, Thailand, Laos and Cambodia have banned vaping. We are pleased to learn that Malaysia is making plans to do so too. With more regional countries banning e-vaporisers, we can be more effective in curbing this harmful and addictive habit.
\t
Third, listing of etomidate as a Class C Controlled Drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act, or MDA. This has sent a clear and strong public message, by elevating the penalties against etomidate-related offences. Together with this, we now have over 10,000 officers empowered to enforce against e-vaporiser-related offences. Agencies have been conducting joint raids at night spots and operations at Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs).
Public vigilance continues to be crucial in enabling offences to be detected. HSA received over 4,600 hotline reports between January and August, and over 1,400 reports through the new online form launched on 21 July. The online form requires Singpass login to prevent spam and ensure report integrity, especially if the reporting member of public wants to upload photos of offenders or locations of offence. For those without Singpass, such as those under 15 years old, they can use the telephone hotline. Because of our strong stance against substance abuse, it is unlikely that production of etomidate e-vaporisers will take root in Singapore.
As for the question of phasing out etomidate in medical settings, etomidate remains a useful anaesthetic agent, particularly in emergencies for intubation purposes and we have no plans to phase it out. Its handling has been well-controlled, previously under the Poisons Act and now under the MDA.
I mentioned earlier that e-vaporisers have changed the landscape of substance abuse. There are more young people involved, out of curiosity, or succumbing to peer pressure. We want to help this group and have provided opportunities for them to come forward and seek help early. We have implemented the following.
First, the \"Bin The Vape\" initiative. About 6,000 e-vaporisers and components were collected between July and August. These devices have been properly disposed of; no testing was done of their contents because that will take up a lot of our testing resources. \"Bin the Vape\" was meant to be a time-limited initiative. We have since reduced the number of bins and located them in specific locations, such as border checkpoints and where rehabilitation programmes are provided.
Second, we introduced or stepped up rehabilitation programmes, namely the QuitVape and I Quit programmes, to support users to kick the habit. From 1 September to 14 September, 74 persons have signed up for these programmes. Those who voluntarily surrender e-vaporisers, including etomidate e-vaporisers and seek help, will not be penalised for doing so. This arrangement has continued since 1 September 2025.
But as for those who are caught, rehabilitation will be required for all etomidate e-vaporiser offenders and repeat e-vaporiser offenders. The rehabilitation programmes are run by the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) and social service agencies (SSAs), such as, WE CARE Community Services and the Singapore Anti-Narcotics Association (SANA) who have expertise in running cessation programmes. Schools and parents are closely involved in the rehabilitation process for youths, including counselling and supporting the youths.
We also need to step up preventive education. We have launched a public anti-vaping campaign. Schools and IHLs are intensifying educational efforts through school curricula, assembly talks and orientation briefings. Students learn about the harms of vaping, recognise impulsive and addictive behaviours and pick up strategies for self-control, help-seeking and managing negative peer influences. The Ministry of Education (MOE) is also engaging parents, including through the Parents Gateway.
While we have listed etomidate in the MDA, the Ministry of Health (MOH) is reviewing the longer-term legislation needed to adapt to this new landscape. The new legislation will provide legal powers to enforce against e-vaporisers of all kinds, provide for mandatory rehabilitation and supervision regimes, and set appropriate penalties for users and suppliers. We plan to enact the new legislation in the first quarter of 2026, to continue to support this whole-Of-Government approach to protect Singaporeans from the harmful effects caused by e-vaporisers.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Ang.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast-Jurong West): Thank you, Speaker, for allowing me to ask supplementary questions. In this House, I have asked many PQs about vaping since 2021. I have some supplementary questions. The first question is more on statistics. How many vaping equipment and vaping materials have been surrendered through the \"bins\" and through voluntary purposes since they started programme?
And secondly, how many people have come voluntarily to HSA for help, because they have already surrendered their vaping equipment and need rehabilitation?
And third question, is, moving on, which Ministry or department will continue the effort against vaping? I noted that the recent HSA's annual report, in the front page, report by the Chairman, there is no mention about vaping, as I mentioned the last round in my supplementary question previously.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: Sir, as mentioned in my reply just now, 6,000 vapes and their components have been surrendered through the \"Bin The Vape\" programme. More have been surrendered earlier but we did not keep track of them.
As for volunteers who gave up vapes since we announced the new policies, 74 have come forward, as I mentioned in my reply.
Which Ministry will coordinate between the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and MOH, we will work closely together to coordinate.
The landscape has changed. It used to be either you smoke and vape, or you take drugs. Two separate sets of people.
But now you have a vape device, it is a delivery device that contains the drugs. The front end is controlled by MOH, controlled substance is regulated by MHA.
So, the landscape has changed. The two Ministries have to work closely together and coordinate this.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister, in his answer, he said, for vaping, there is a high number of youths caught for vaping related offences. According to news reports, these youths are enticed to vaping and peddling of vapes through social media channels. I would like to ask how well is our HSA resourced to counter such tactics employed by the vape trafficking syndicates?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: I think the challenge is not one of resource, but through the Internet and messaging platforms, they proliferate very easily and they do not necessarily have a presence in Singapore for you to able to get hold of them and take them to task. So, it is a big cat and mouse game. We will continue to do so. We have shut down so many of them – I reported it in my reply – and working together with the Info-communications Media Development Authority (IMDA), as well as the tech platforms.
But most importantly, the culture of avoiding substance abuse must take root in our society. What has been very comforting is that ever since we launched this new whole-of-Government approach to tackling etomidate vaping, the public has been very supportive. Schools, institutions, SSAs and even the youths amongst themselves are very supportive. So, we hope we continue to uphold this behaviour and this culture, and I think that is the best defence against substance abuse.
\tMr Speaker: I am trying to see those who have asked PQs earlier, I will give priority. If there are not, I will go to the rest. Ms Poh Li San.
\tMs Poh Li San (Sembawang West): In view of the tightened measures to eradicate the use of vapes in Singapore, this has also caused a shift to more underground activities. What are the Government's measures to target this group of sales of vapes, especially Kpods, in underground activities?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: Never think that just because we are worried about underground activities, so therefore, legalise and regulate. That is what other countries have done when it comes to controlled drugs; and look where they are, and look where we are.
So, I think we have always taken a tough stance against drugs. I do not know why I am answering this, but I think it is a correct approach to take. Things do go underground and MHA, with our tough laws, will take very tough actions against them.
So, likewise for etomidate. Do not fall for harm reduction arguments, ban it, enforce it; if it goes underground, we will go after you.
\tMr Speaker: Asst Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker. Much obliged. I understand that I did not file a PQ on this, but I am just wondering if the enhanced stance against vaping will now, in fact, empower the SPF and not just the HSA, to apprehend individuals reported to be using or distributing vapes?
I ask because the previous appeals I had written on behalf of residents to the SPF had been redirected. The concern however, in doing so, is two-fold. The presence of HSA officers, presumably is not as ubiquitous as that of the Police and HSA may not potentially have sufficient resources to tackle the surge in cases. This is something that Member Melvin Yong had also raised previously.
Perhaps it is not within your Ministry, Sir, but I am wondering if we could have your thoughts on that.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: We coordinate all these. In fact, more than the SPF. Today, SPF, HSA, ICA, CNB, the National Environment Agency, Land Transport Authority, MOE, Gambling Regulatory Authority, all the officers are empowered now to take actions against etomidate related offences.
As the Member mentioned, there were instances in the past, because etomidate fell between the legal cracks, which is why there was a point that the SPF did not feel they were empowered to enforce; yet, it falls under HSA. But HSA finds that our penalties, if we catch someone possessing or using etomidate, the penalties are not stringent enough, which is why we took the step of listing etomidate as a Class C drug in MDA. So, we closed the loophole. But this is temporary. As I mentioned, early next year, we want to pass new legislation to make the necessary provision to enforce against this.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
\tMr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): I thank the Minister for his clear response. I just like to re-introduce the subutex experience all those years ago.
I remember we had to fill the gap with subutex and it took some time to fill the gap for subutex before we could classify it as an illegal drug and then take enforcement action.
I just see a little bit of similarity here with etomidate. I am concerned at the length of time it took HSA to classify this as a Class C drug.
I do not know the ins and outs of HSA. There could be a number of reasons why the experiments had to take so long or the policy considerations. I would like to know whether we had learnt from the subutex situation and whether or not we could have been quicker in reducing, the amount of time it took to classify etomidate as a Class C. Because only then, can you come in and do all the enforcement.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: The classification of etomidate under MDA is done under MHA. But I take the Member's point. We have to act as fast as we can. The process does take some time when the new substance enters a community. You have to observe who is taking it, will it fizzle out or will it start to take root and grow. Ketamine, for example, did not take root.
At the same time, we have to observe the clinical evidence. How harmful is it? How addictive is it? And how dependent does someone become? So, all these take a bit of time. But I take the Member's point. We have to act as quickly as we can.
\t
\tMr Speaker: Mr Kenneth Tiong.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): There is a case in my division, where the child is hooked on Kpods and expelled from school. He refuses all contacts with authorities. His parents want to know what powers do the authorities have to enforce compulsory assessment and rehabilitation for these youths that refuse our help?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: The Member wrote to me about this case. This is one of those cases that fell through the cracks during that transition period. Right now, with etomidate listed in MDA, we close the loophole. Next year, we will have new legislation.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.
\tMs Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Thank you, Speaker. I have two supplementary questions. One is echoing from what Parliamentary colleague, Mr Christopher de Souza has said, I would like to ask whether, apart from the etomidate-laced vapes, has the Ministry detected the use of other unlawful or harmful substances as well, that may potentially be also classified?
The other supplementary question is pertaining to MOE's recent announcements on introducing suspensions. In this regard, I would like to inquire whether we are exploring for these suspensions to be in-house, which means it is within the school, rather than external, as an effort to rehabilitate the students better. This is following from some of the feedback that we have gathered through Woodgrove's anti-vaping taskforce through which we have been engaging the schools.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: On the first question, I assume the Member is asking whether there are other substances that are delivered through e-vaporisers. We have seen them in other countries – cannabis, for example; in Australia, we saw fentanyl. So, we have to observe this carefully and, as Mr de Souza mentioned, be very vigilant, list them quickly, do not allow them to take root.
As for the next question, about MOE, I think I will answer on behalf of MOE, their measures are over and above what the law has provided. If a student is caught using etomidate through e-vaporisers, he will be required to go through the rehabilitation programme, either at IMH or one of our SSA partners. On top of that, MOE will, through their own in-house school discipline system, impose other punishments, such as suspension.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Minister, two supplementary questions. Would it be possible to include etomidate's precursors under the precursors control list? Secondly, how do we ensure that the medical alternatives for etomidate do not get abused by drug addicts as an easy substitute?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: For precursors, I assume you meant the derivatives of etomidate. They are all listed as part of the Class C drug under MDA, they have already been listed. But if we have missed out something, do let us know and we will include them.
The second question, I think we just have to be tough on all forms of substance abuse so that one does not become the substitute of the other. This is an area where MHA will obviously know a lot better. But right now, as I have mentioned, e-vaporisers have changed the landscape. Now, you have got something very recreational, a delivery device – from delivering lychee-flavoured nicotine, to etomidate to cannabis. So, you have a range of stuff that can be delivered through this device. When someone is using a vape, you do not know what he or she is consuming.
Because of that, MHA and MOH will have to work closely together, so that we cover all bases. So, whatever substance abuse is out there, we take firm action against them, so that one does not become a substitute for the other.
Mr Speaker: Dr Hamid Razak.
\tDr Hamid Razak (West Coast-Jurong West): I would like to ask the Minister if Singapore has raised the issue of e-vapour product control in ASEAN forums and what have the responses from our neighbours been and whether any collaborations have emerged thus far?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: We have had some informal consultations and we hope ASEAN, at some point, can take a concerted stance. This is something that we want to work towards. In the meantime, we do see more and more ASEAN countries banning vapes, Malaysia being the latest to attempt to do so, and we will share our information and our experiences with them. Hopefully, at some point, we will have a stronger ASEAN common stance.
Mr Speaker: Mr Victor Lye.
\tMr Victor Lye (Ang Mo Kio): Minister, to the extent that smoking is precursor to vaping and with the clampdown on vaping, does the Ministry intend to take a tighter stance against smoking, especially among our young?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: The good thing is that smoking prevalence has been dropping in Singapore continuously. The latest survey showed that prevalence among adults – \"adults\" meaning aged 15 and above – is 8.8%. It is a historical low and one of the lowest in the world. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health\", Official Report, 22 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 2, Correction By Written Statement section.]
We will continue to encourage people not to smoke. And Singaporeans are responding to it. We should also remember that tobacco has been around for 200 years. When it first started, people did not know the harm that it can cause. Today, we know but it has taken root and become part of society's behaviour. But we will have to continue to work on reducing the prevalence of smoking.
Mr Speaker: We have many PQs in this list, so I am going to give this one last supplementary question to Dr Wan Rizal.
\tDr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your indulgence. Minister, you mentioned the involvement of IMH in these efforts to reduce our vaping issues. We clearly know IMH is very much involved with rehabilitation and cessation programmes too. With this expansion, how will it affect IMH's operational ability, given that we do have many cases of mental health also requiring attention? And especially since we see a surge in youth numbers coming forward, which is a good thing, but it also affects the system.
Secondly, are there plans for IMH to design dedicated youth-focused programmes apart from the adult ones, because we know that they respond differently to such therapeutic approaches?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: IMH does a lot of things, with different departments. So, the department for cessation, which is called National Addictions Management Service (NAMS), have their dedicated resources. So, they will not be using resources that are used to treat or to help mental illness cases.
That said, we are just starting our operations. If there is a need for more resources, we will beef them up.
As for youths, we are working closely with the Ministry of Social and Family Development and the SSAs, such as WeCare and Fei Yue, who have experience working with youths. They are already starting operations on cessation programmes for youths.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) how many e-vaporisers have been collected since the introduction of the “Bin the Vape” campaign on 25 July 2025; and (b) whether there will be plans to increase the number of locations for the e-vaporiser disposal bins beyond the current community centres and into Institutes of Higher Learning.","2 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what channels exist for those under 15 years old to report vaping or sale of e-vaporisers beyond the online reporting form managed by HSA which requires a Singpass login; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider introducing non-Singpass verification options for persons under 15 years old to report vaping activity safely and promptly; and (c) if so, by when."],"footNoteQuestions":["7","8","9","10","11"],"questionNo":"7-11"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enhancing Border Controls and Extending Extra-territorial Provisions in Misuse of Drugs Act to Deter Smuggling of Vapes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Ministry has considered extending the extra-territorial provisions under the Misuse of Drugs Act to etomidate-laced vapes similar to prosecuting citizens for overseas cannabis use; and (b) what are the key policy considerations in deciding whether or not to assert jurisdiction beyond Singapore's borders.
13 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs whether border control measures and customs inspections will be strengthened to address smuggling of illegal vaping products through Singapore's borders.
14 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what measures are taken to address the trend of youths using vapes containing controlled substances; (b) whether enforcement agencies plan to review current enforcement strategies to more effectively deter illegal importation and distribution of vaping devices; and (c) how will the Ministry work with the Ministry of Health to ensure a twinned approach to tackling this issue.
15 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs whether Singapore's current border enforcement approaches are adequate to intercept illegal imports of e-vaporisers and related products, including through postal channels.
16 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many cases of attempted e-vaporiser smuggling into Singapore have been intercepted at our checkpoints over the past one year; and (b) what measures will the Ministry take to strengthen interdiction and disrupt the upstream networks that supply e-vaporisers and related products to Singapore.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Coordinating Minister for National Security and the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 12 to 16 together?
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, we have stepped up enforcement at the borders to deter trafficking of vapes. Between 15 September 2024 and 14 September 2025, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) intercepted 76 attempts of large-scale smuggling of vapes and related products at the checkpoints and 57 attempts through the postal channels.
The Singapore Police Force (SPF) and Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) are conducting inland operations against vape trafficking syndicates. On 10 September, CNB dismantled a syndicate dealing in etomidate-laced vapes and arrested eight members of the syndicate.
Extraterritorial jurisdiction of the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) was introduced in 1998 to prevent local addicts from being able to travel overseas to abuse drugs. Under section 8A of the MDA, Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents who are found to have abused controlled drugs outside Singapore will be dealt with as if that offence had been committed in Singapore. With the temporary listing of etomidate and its analogues as Class C controlled drugs, the same provision will apply to those who abuse etomidate overseas.
As for the question on youths abusing vapes containing controlled substances, Ministry of Education schools and Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) have been engaging students on the health risks and illegality of vapes through the school curriculum and compulsory IHL orientation e-modules. CNB has also included etomidate in its ongoing preventive drug education efforts aimed at youths.
These efforts complement the national public education campaign coordinated by the Ministry of Digital Development and Information.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): I thank the Minister for his reply. With the Johor Economic Zone moving closer to reality and the planned seamless MRT link between Singapore and Johor Bahru, does the Government anticipate an increased risk of illicit substances, such as vapes, being trafficked across our borders and what enhanced detection capabilities does ICA have to detect vapes or related components at our checkpoint?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. So, indeed, the Johor Bahru-Singapore Rapid Transit System (RTS) Link will facilitate the movement of convenience between Singapore and Johor Bahru. With this convenience, you can anticipate some travellers who may want to take advantage of the ease of movement to smuggle in contraband.
As such, we have an operational response plan in place where we will enhance the way we do things at the RTS, looking at some of the perceived gaps and at the same time, we want to make sure that it does not inconvenience the travellers as much. So, we will deploy CNB and Police officers there, together with the ICA, to see how we can not only apprehend the persons doing this but also to ensure to give the feeling that it is safe and secure at our borders.
Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): I thank the Minister for his assurance, but I am quite concerned to read a recent CNA article published on 11 September that reported how vape shops in Johor Bahru say that Singaporeans still form the bulk of their customers. And checks at our checkpoints, despite all the enhanced penalties, the couriers are still willing to take on these risks to smuggle vapes into Singapore. So, I would like to ask the Minister two questions.
One, what is the total quantity of e-vaporisers and related products detected in the cases intercepted at our checkpoints in the past one year? And whether the penalties for smuggling vapes into Singapore can be further increased, so that we can do more to deter such vapes from entering our shores?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. Answering the second supplementary question first, during that period that I have shared, authorities have seized more than 500,000 e-vaporisers and related components across the cases that I have shared.
And what is key is that, as what was shared by Minister Ong Ye Kung earlier, we have the whole-of-Government effort. It is not only looking at vapes but also looking at etomidate and any other substances that may be brought into Singapore, since 1 September when we listed etomidate in Class C listing. Our ground sensing indicated that there has been a reduction, and the etomidate traffickers are more wary about the situation and our enhanced enforcement efforts. And so, there are those who have stopped dealing with etomidate.
Well, there are also those who still want to take the risk. They feel that there is demand. We will continue to take action against them. Just two weeks ago, we arrested eight members of etomidate syndicates. We will continue to monitor the situation.
We also need the help of fellow Singaporeans and our Members here so that we can, not only take the necessary actions, but I think, go upstream to share with fellow Singaporeans, especially our young people, that these are harmful for them and we protect our people so that they have better lives ahead and continue to keep Singapore safe and secure.
\t
\tMr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
\tMr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): I thank the Minister for his clear responses. My supplementary questions are borne out of my understanding of the MDA. The MDA is effective, it is an excellent tool to combat drugs, provided the drug is classified in a certain Schedule; and here, Class C.
And the last time we had a lot of difficulty with cross-border importation of drugs was new psychoactive substances (NPS). In fact, the Minister and I had a debate about this in a Motion. So, my concern is that we do not know what is beyond the horizon. My question is, how can we make the system more efficient and effective so that if some NPS, some new drug comes up on the market, we are able to have the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Ministry of Health (MOH) work together, get it under the Class C and therefore, administered.
Because without it being a Schedule drug, we cannot consider them: the people who traffic, as traffickers; the people who consume, as consumers. So, it is critical in the legal stratosphere to have this efficiently, effectively and promptly scheduled as a Class C drug.
That is my genuine concern. I want to know why it took so long for etomidate to be classified as a Class C drug and what more can we do in future to plug this gap and be more efficient in enforcement?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. Minister Ong has shared his view and I concur with his view that, yes, we will continue to make sure that we are quick and also we are able to address the issue with regard to the new types of substance that come on board.
However, the reality, if you look globally, is that this is something that governments around the world, across the world, are handling this issue; whereby for us, we have a strong stance and that is a protection for our system. Nevertheless, even with a strong stance, the traffickers, syndicates will always find opportunities to slip in.
And what about those without the strong stance? You can imagine how the people are affected by not only drugs, controlled drugs, but also substances that can give them a very, very, even short time, or a level of highness that would keep them addicted to it.
So, we will continue to look at the MDA. As the Member shared, we have enhanced how we deal with NPS. This is something that we will continue to do, to look at the landscape and see what ways we can continue to strengthen it. So, I assure the Member that we are in this very seriously. Why? Because we have seen how, in other parts of the world, many countries not only got affected; they turned into a narcotic-state because they were taking a very light stance on it; they felt, initially, nothing will happen to them. But this whole idea of the syndicates trafficking and how they introduce substances and drugs into the society quietly underground and when you come to know about it, you realise it is too late and it is going to be very difficult. I have met many of my counterparts who were taken by surprise, not knowing what is to come.
We are on the right path and we want to get the support of all the Members here and fellow Singaporeans, so that we can continue to do this and protect our people together.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Mariam Jaafar.
\tMs Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): I have two supplementary questions. The first supplementary question is around the postal channels. I understand that some of the recent raids arose out of reports by courier staff who discovered vapes or etomidate-laced vapes in the parcels that they were delivering.
I would like to know how are the courier and parcel companies being engaged, enlisted to assist in detecting and reporting the issue of vapes, especially those that have probably slipped through our border controls before? My second supplementary question is, how is technology being used to screen for vapes in small parcels?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. Indeed, a very important supplementary question, because many of our products or services are undertaken at this platform, that is, the postal channels.
All inbound postal articles are subjected to screening by ICA officers with the aid of screening equipment, such as X-ray scanners. Upon detection of any e-vaporises or related components, the article will be referred to HSA for further investigation.
The Member may be interested to note that during the period I shared, from 15 September 2024 to 14 September 2025, we have seized more than 3,000 e-vaporises and related components across these cases.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.
\tMr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Speaker, I am just picking up on a point that the Minister made earlier, but which comes within MHA's prerogative. The Minister was mentioning that a lot of vapes are sold through social media, potentially Telegram. Does MHA think it has adequate tools to deal with sale through social media and whether any more tools are needed?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: I thank the Member for the supplementary question. Yes, we are in the social media space and that is how we have been able to dismantle many of the syndicates, and we will continue to do so. This is a platform where it has developed tremendously, and it also changes very fast. The Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) as well as our agencies, we continue to develop not only the platform but how we can be more effective in our enforcement and at the same time going upstream on that.
\tMr Speaker: Mr David Hoe.
\tMr David Hoe (Jurong East-Bukit Batok): Speaker, Sir, I have two supplementary questions. These are questions from parents. For youths who consume vaping overseas, what is our position on it? Similar to when the youths consume cannabis. That being the first question.
The second supplementary question is about reporting. Earlier, a Member mentioned that a lot of these can be purchased online. But then, we also realise that for those youths that are below 15 years old, if all these are online platforms, we wonder whether if there is an appropriate platform for the youths to be able to report?
\tMr Speaker: Minister Ong Ye Kung.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The first question, simple answer is, if you consume it overseas as a Class C drug, under MDA, you are still liable for penalty. That is the position we take for all drugs.
Second is, for youths without Singpass, use the telephone. I know there were instances when the operator on the line say, \"Can you please send it via the form?\" Probably because in the course of the conversation, the youth might have said, \"I got photos to show.\" Because once you have photos, you have got to go to the actual form, which then requires Singpass. But if you do not have Singpass, just tell the operator, I have a case to report. It will be admitted and we will take action appropriately.
I just want to touch on the point that Mr de Souza raised earlier about being fast. I take that point totally. We are going to come to the House to propose a new legislation under MOH. It can be new, or it can be an amendment of existing legislation, but it will provide us with the legal powers to act faster. Even in the absence of total or of comprehensive clinical data on harm, on addiction, on dependence, we can take action first under MOH's powers with the collaboration of other agencies, to require mandated rehabilitation, mandated supervision.
It is a matter of legislation; the legislation do provide for faster response and I think with the new legislation coming next year, do debate on it, give us your perspective and I think, it will improve the situation.
\tMr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Faishal, do you wish to add anything? No? Okay, I am going to move on to the next Parliamentary Question. Mr David Hoe. It should be Question No 17 next.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Improving OneService App to Include Reporting of Vaping, Non-Singpass Verification and Automated Translation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"17 Mr David Hoe asked the Minister for National Development whether the Municipal Services Office can (i) add a dedicated vaping reporting pathway in the OneService App with direct routing and data-sharing to HSA and CNB (ii) offer youth-accessible options, including non-Singpass alternative verification channels for usage of the various reporting features of OneService and (iii) include multilingual prompts in OneService through automated translation to improve reporting uptake.
\tThe Minister of State for National Development (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of Health (MOH) and the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) have assessed that the current reporting channels for vaping-related offences are adequate. Since July 2025, HSA has extended its hotline operating hours for reporting vaping related offences to seven days a week from 9.00 am to 9.00 pm. HSA has also launched an online reporting form to complement its hotline, as was answered earlier on with the preceding Parliamentary Questions.
Where necessary, MOH and HSA will work with relevant agencies, including the Municipal Services Office (MSO), to explore other means to enhance the reach and accessibility of vaping reporting channels.
Separately, MSO's OneService municipal case reporting function is also available as an AI-enabled chatbot on WhatsApp, Telegram and Instagram messenger. These channels complement our OneService app and do not require Singpass authentication. The chatbot is also hosted on social messaging platforms which are familiar to youths and seniors alike, which makes it even more convenient for residents to provide feedback on municipal issues. MSO is also studying how to enhance our chatbot to take in and process feedback given in vernacular languages.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Internal Probe into PUB's Contract Irregularities Reported in AGO's FY2024/2025 Audit and Interim Governance Measures Implemented","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"18 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry can provide details of its internal investigation that was conducted in relation to the irregularities discovered in PUB contracts; and (b) what are the interim measures being taken to strengthen the governance process.
\tThe Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, may I seek your permission to take Question No 18 together with the two related Parliamentary Questions (PQs) by Mr Xie Yao Quan1 and Ms Poh Li San that are scheduled for later Sittings? In addition, I will address two written PQs filed by Mr Foo Cexiang and Mr Shawn Loh for the 22 and 25 September 2025 Sittings, respectively. These five PQs relate to the Public Utilities Board's (PUB's) lapses highlighted in the recent Auditor-General's Office (AGO) report. I will respond to these questions together so that I can give a comprehensive reply.
If the Members are satisfied with the reply given, they may wish to withdraw their PQs.
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: Thank you. My Ministry takes the AGO findings seriously and has conducted comprehensive internal investigations into the contract management lapses contained in the report.
AGO raised concerns over the authenticity of quotations provided for 23 items of variation works, or star rate items, under a construction contract for waterscape works, which amounted to a total value of $148,900. PUB has reported the matter to the Police to investigate if there were any fraudulent practices involved. It has also conducted a thorough review of similar contracts and did not find such irregularities. It will follow up with its own disciplinary actions should the Police investigations uncover any wrongdoing.
As for the case of documentation falsification for the contract on supply of biocide, PUB has completed its internal investigation and found this to be the fault of an individual officer. The Certificates of Analysis (COAs) were altered to include required information which has been omitted. The alterations were done to cover up the incompleteness of the original documents to be provided to the AGO auditors, but the contents were factual. It has issued a formal reprimand to the officer and will be downgrading the officer's performance grade.
On the AGO findings on the lack of comprehensive coverage of maintenance contracts for PUB's water quality analysers at private sector plants, it was already working on addressing the gap before the AGO audit.
It has since addressed the issue by using its other contracts to cover the scope of work. It installed water quality analysers as additional precautionary checks over and above the analysers installed by the private sector operators, the results of the analysers cross-checked daily with water sampling tests.
I would like to assure the House that PUB has instituted adequate checks to ensure the delivery of clean water that is safe to drink.
On the lapses related to supply of stocks, PUB has identified the root causes to be individual officers not being diligent in carrying out the required checks and inadequate supervision to enforce the requirements stipulated under the contracts, including verification of documents submitted by the contractors. It has taken appropriate disciplinary action against the six officers involved.
PUB has taken the following steps to strengthen its processes. First, it has increased the scope of its internal audits on procurement and contract management. This includes additional checks on star rates in contract variations and use of digital tools, including artificial intelligence (AI), to improve checks on contractual requirements and detect fraud.
Second, PUB has tightened the standard operating procedures (SOPs) for contract management, to ensure alignment with contractual requirements, such as requiring the submission of the original COAs. PUB has also tightened its SOPs for checks on the quality of the stocks used in its operations. It has confirmed that the quality of the stocks that it has received earlier met its requirements. It will take appropriate action against contractors who fail to meet their obligations, including those who submit non-compliant COAs. Where feasible, it is automating processes to reduce reliance on manual monitoring and the risk of human error.
Finally, PUB will continue to share the lessons arising from AGO's findings with all staff, as part of the regular staff training and communications on procurement and contract management.
Mr Speaker: Ms Nadia Samdin.
\tMs Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): I thank the Minister for the reply as well. I have two follow-up supplementary questions. The first is, I note that there were several individual officers involved. Other than the disciplinary action taken against these individual officers, will the Ministry also consider moving upstream to conduct, for example, refresher training across the board, as well as employing a digital automated or AI means upstream, beyond just on the audit.
The second supplementary question I have is whether any of this impact the speed and projects that are under these contracts.
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: Speaker, the short answer to the first question is no. I think the question has two parts. One is whether there will be training involved on other officers, including those that are more senior. The answer is yes, and will there be automation, yes. As I have mentioned in my reply, we will look at where technology is helpful, to help staff manage the contract requirements.
And as to the speed of implementation, that is definitely not something that we want to compromise on. This audit and this report have given PUB many good lessons and we would like to implement and run a tighter ship without affecting the effectiveness of the agency.
Mr Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan.
\tMr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wish to state that PUB, as our national water agency, has a critical mission of ensuring Singapore's water security. I think it is also important to state for the record that, in my view, PUB has excelled in this mission by boldly innovating.
So, my question really is in the wake of the AGO's findings and PUB's response to tighten processes. How will PUB also ensure that it preserves and indeed, continues to grow this spirit of innovation, of boldness, of mission focus?
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: Thank you very much. I thank Member Xie Yao Quan for giving PUB an endorsement of its performance. I would like to assure Members that PUB will continue to do its work, being the water agency, and take pride in what it does for the country in terms of assuring our water safety and security. In fact, this report has told us that innovation can be undertaken in areas, such as operations, in procurement. And I think with more application of appropriate technology, our officers can be more effective and therefore, relieve themselves from the mundane work so that they can focus on more strategic and more important functions.
Mr Speaker: Mr Foo Cexiang.
Mr Foo Cexiang (Tanjong Pagar): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister whether in view of the lapses, whether the Ministry has considered if the workload of the officers is a contributing factor to the lapses. As we understand it, the number of contracts that each officer does have to deal with could be very copious, so I would like to check the Minister's response.
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: Indeed, thank you very much to the Member for his questions and the care and concern for officers in PUB. I would like to say that the findings that have shown up in this audit reflected lapses, not so much because there is a voluminous amount of work, but rather in some of the processes that have been unclear and not properly carried forward.
In any case, if there are crunches in terms of resources, I have been told that officers are able to raise these issues with their supervisors. But more importantly, I go back to my point. I think there are technologies that can help us to make our operations a lot more automated and also less prone to human errors.
Mr Speaker: Last supplementary question, Mr Shawn Loh.
Mr Shawn Loh (Jalan Besar): Thank you, Mr Speaker. There were two types of errors here that were discovered by the AGO. One was human error, but the other one was more serious, which was a lack of integrity, resulting in the falsification of documents.
So, my question to the Minister is whether in the reprimand framework of PUB, is there a difference between the two? Because in her reply, both officers were reprimanded. And if there is a difference, do we then treat a lack of integrity with more seriousness?
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: I think that it may not be clear as to in which of the findings was there a lack of integrity. I think there is one that is being mentioned in the report about accuracy in the rates that is being used in the variation order – that is being investigated. We have been holding our assessment at this point in time, pending the outcome of the investigation.
The other issue with falsification, actually, it is an alteration. A staff had basically altered a document, in order to provide completeness of information on that document. We have found that the facts were not misrepresented. The documents were factual, so there was an error of judgement on the staff's part to use alteration as a way of providing the information that is required by AGO. There was not any suffering in terms of financial or operational issues that the agency has received.
So, on that note, and in reviewing the guidelines and the regulations that the Public Service have adopted, we have decided that reprimanding and downgrading of his performance grade is the right outcome for him.
Mr Speaker: Ms Poh Li San, last one.
\tMs Poh Li San (Sembawang West): Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister. May I know if PUB or the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment will be relooking at the panel of contractors that PUB typically uses, particularly the very specialised ones especially, and also the star rate contractors, in view of these findings?
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: As I said, the investigation is ongoing. There is no ground for us to doubt the integrity of parties that is involved, but should the outcome of the investigation show that there has been intention to defraud the agency, we will definitely do the appropriate action with regard to the contractor that is involved.
Having said that, PUB will always review the contractors from time to time, looking at its ability to supply and support the operations of the agencies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in respect of the Auditor-General’s Office's audit observations on PUB (a) whether there is systemic weakness in PUB's contract management and procurement practices; (b) how many officers has PUB taken disciplinary action against; and (c) what disciplinary actions were taken against the officer found to be involved in the alteration of records."],"footNoteQuestions":["18"],"questionNo":"18"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Causes for Recent MRT and LRT Breakdowns, and Measures to Improve Rail Reliability and Review Financial Penalties","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"19 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Acting Minister for Transport as regards the two breakdowns on the Sengkang-Punggol LRT in August 2025 (a) when will the final investigation results be released; (b) what safeguards have been put in place for adequate maintenance and safety checks for commuters and rail workers; and (c) what new technology and safety enhancements will be put in place to prevent future breakdowns.
20 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry can provide an update on the status of the investigation and the design review by LTA project team following the recent major disruptions of the Bukit Panjang LRT on 3 July 2025 and 19 July 2025; and (b) whether the power trips which were identified as the cause of both incidents could have been prevented.
21 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Acting Minister for Transport in each year over the past five years (a) what is the number of regulatory breaches for each of the rail operators under the New Rail Financing Framework (NRFF); and (b) what are the corresponding financial penalties that have been imposed, including for the failure to provide and maintain an adequate, safe and satisfactory service.
22 Ms Poh Li San asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) what improvements has the Ministry made to prevent a recurrence of the North East MRT Line (NEL) and Sengkang-Punggol LRT (SPLRT) disruptions on 12 August 2025; (b) what issues caused the SPLRT disruption to last around ten hours; and (c) what steps will the operator take to respond more quickly to future service disruptions.
23 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) what factors resulted in MRT reliability falling to its lowest level since 2020; (b) whether any trend is observed across the spate of MRT and LRT disruptions since August 2025; (c) whether the rail infrastructure needs refreshing; and (d) what will be done to improve rail reliability and sustain achievement of the target of Mean Kilometres Between Failure to meet public expectations.
24 Mr Ng Chee Meng asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether he can provide an update on the investigation into the root causes of the recent breakdown on the Sengkang-Punggol LRT on 15 August 2025; and (b) what remedial actions will be taken by the operator to prevent future occurrences.
\tThe Acting Minister for Transport (Mr Jeffrey Siow): Mr Speaker, I seek your permission to take the following six questions, Question Nos 19 to 24 together. There are total of 18 Parliamentary Questions (PQs) filed on rail reliability for this week's Sittings.
For today, I will respond on this issue more generally before addressing the specific incidents that Members have asked about. And thereafter I invite Members who have filed PQs for this as well as future Sittings to seek clarifications and if sufficiently addressed, Members may wish to withdraw their questions filed for subsequent Sittings.
Mr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tMr Jeffrey Siow: Thank you. Let me begin. Ms Tin Pei Ling and Mr Yip Hon Weng have noted that our rail reliability, as measured by mean kilometres between failure (MKBF), is at its lowest since 2020. In 2017, then-Minister for Transport Mr Khaw Boon Wan set an MKBF target of one million train-kilometres (km) between delays exceeding five minutes. We surpassed this target in 2019 and we have remained above it ever since. This number for the 12-month period leading up to August 2025 is approximately 1.7 million train-km. This is lower than our peak MKBF of over two million in 2022 and 2023, but still higher than the one million target.
Mr Sharael Taha asked how our MKBF compares internationally. Using MKBF and other indicators where comparisons are available, our Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) remains one of the most reliable in the world. Singapore's MKBF in recent years is higher than Hong Kong Mass Transit Railway's (MTR's), though lower than Taipei Metro's. For the number of service delays exceeding 30 minutes per million train-km, our MRT performs about the same as metros in Tokyo and other Japanese cities. I have asked the Land Transport Authority (LTA) to publish these comparisons regularly, because Singaporeans often compare our MRT to these systems.
Our journey to achieve one million train-km was by no means easy. It was the result of years of hard work by thousands of people, including many engineers, technicians and service staff, who worked day and night to keep our train services running.
I want to thank Ms Yeo Wan Ling for asking about the work hours, safety and well-being of our rail transport workers, many of whom are Singaporeans. Rail operators are required to ensure that workers maintain appropriate rest periods and there are strict controls to prevent excessive overtime. And I assure Ms Yeo that we take the safety and well-being of our rail transport workers very seriously. And I myself have personally visited workers often since I became the Acting Transport Minister. They are part of my One Transport Team and I am committed to taking good care of them.
Should we set an even higher target for MKBF? Mr Sharael asked this. It is a reasonable question, but beyond one million train-km, variations in the MKBF become less meaningful, that is because the number of disruptions per year are very small. Let me give you an example.
For the Downtown Line, the maximum MKBF is about eight million train-km, it achieved it in 2023 and 2024, but just one additional delay halved it to four million. Another drawback of the MKBF indicator is that it does not really measure the length of the disruption, and hence the impact on the commuter. For example, a complete service stoppage is treated the same as more frequent minor incidents, even when trains are moving and passengers are able to carry on with their journeys.
LTA does consider commuter impact in the financial penalties that are imposed on operators for serious disruptions. And to Mr Louis Chua's question, LTA has imposed an average of around four such penalties per year in the past five years.
We also use other measures to track the performance of our rail network. Some of these are published, such as the number of delays of more than 30 minutes, which I mentioned earlier. And there are other indicators, such as the punctuality of trains reaching each terminus station and the proportion of scheduled mileage travelled by revenue trains, and LTA tracks these too.
\t
I have asked LTA to share more of such data publicly, even though they are fairly technical, so that interested commuters and colleagues can have a better and fuller picture of our performance. We will be transparent, because we have a good system and we have nothing to hide.
I want to assure Members that I take every single rail incident very seriously. I am personally alerted whenever there is a train incident, even when it is late into the night or during engineering hours. We want to be accountable to commuters because this means when an incident happens, we will learn from it and we will do our utmost to prevent similar faults from recurring. Accountability is also why I asked LTA last Friday to put out the whole list of incidents that have happened since July this year, with our assessment on the causes and how these problems were or are being resolved.
As Members have also asked questions on these specific incidents, I will cover them very briefly in the interest of time and invite Members to refer to LTA's news release last Friday for further details.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Ms Poh Li San, Mr Ng Chee Meng and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked about breakdowns for the North East Line (NEL) and the Sengkang-Punggol LRT (SPLRT) in August. As LTA had explained, two faults occurred at a substation at Sengkang Depot on 12 August, which cut off power to several parts of the NEL and SPLRT. Works to repair the damage commenced that night. Unfortunately, before the repair could be completed, a damaged cable caused a separate power fault on the SPLRT three days later.
Ms Poh Li San asked why it took a longer time to recover service on the SPLRT on 12 August. This was because LTA and SBS Transit (SBST) had to take some time to determine that it was fully safe for the power to be turned on.
The root cause of these faults is still being investigated. The faulty components have been sent to the manufacturer for checks. LTA is also investigating whether there were any lapses in maintenance. If so, this will result in regulatory action.
I want to also assure Members that immediate action has been taken to avoid a recurrence. LTA and SBST have tested cables along the entire SPLRT network and will replace all voltage transformer panels across NEL intake substations. We had already planned to install a secondary power supply source at Sengkang LRT Depot by the end of this year which will provide further redundancy.
Mr Edward Chia and Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked about our findings on the two Bukit Panjang Light Rail Transit (BPLRT) incidents in July. We have traced both incidents to a malfunctioning network switch. As the switch was intermittently functioning, the defect was only discovered after the second incident.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked if the disruption could have been avoided. As the network switch was well within its design life, the malfunction, unfortunately, was not anticipated. But this defective switch has been replaced and sent to the manufacturer for investigation. LTA and SMRT have also put in additional measures to detect such network instability in the future and to enable the power system to automatically recover in such instances.
Mr Jackson Lam and Miss Rachel Ong asked about incidents on the North South and the East West Lines. The incident on the East West Line on the morning of 6 August was caused by a faulty point machine near Jurong East station, one of our busiest stations. Point machines physically move the rails so that trains can transfer from one track to another. Therefore, for safety reasons, trains had to be slowed down until after the morning peak when the point machine could be fixed. This resulted in more crowding than usual during the morning peak hours.
Mr Jackson Lam asked about our maintenance regime for point machines and whether we could have picked up the fault earlier. Operators do carry out periodic inspections and comprehensive regular overhaul, including functional tests, as per industry best practices. Unfortunately, the fault on 6 August was detected just before the start of service and could not be resolved by the morning peak.
On the separate incident on the North South Line (NSL) on 2 September, this was caused by a stalled train, which had to be physically pushed out to Canberra station to disembark passengers. The problem was traced to a faulty connector, which has since been replaced.
Mr Jackson Lam also asked about the number of signalling-related disruptions on the NSL in the past year. There was only one such delay on 13 June, where the travelling time between Ang Mo Kio and Choa Chu Kang was extended by 15 minutes. And normal service resumed within an hour.
These recent incidents happened across different MRT lines with different causes. But we want to take a harder look to satisfy ourselves that there is indeed no systemic problem. This is why I announced last week that I had tasked the Chief Executive of LTA, Mr Ng Lang, to chair a Rail Reliability Taskforce which will include the Chief Executives of two MRT operators, Mr Ngien Hoon Ping of SMRT and Mr Jeffrey Sim of SBST.
This task force will focus on three areas. First, it will bring forward the renewal of critical components, especially power supply and signalling for the NEL and the Circle Line. Second, it will jointly conduct audits on the maintenance and operations of critical systems, including maintenance processes as well and staff training. Third, it will review service recovery processes, so that we can better support commuters who are caught in a train disruption. And here, the train operators have been informing commuters of service delays in excess of 10 minutes, as required by LTA.
In response to Mr Louis Chua's question, LTA has not had to impose any penalties on this in the past five years.
But this is still only a basic requirement and I think we can do better. For instance, commuters should have more precise information on alternative travel routes and additional travel time, depending on their specific location rather than through generic advisories. They should also be able to get the information at a single centralised location, possibly on a single app, so that they know exactly where to look during a stressful disruption. These things we can improve as well as physical things like directional signs and officers' reactions on the ground.
Mr Speaker, the recent disruptions have inconvenienced many commuters. I understand the frustrations and I want to assure commuters that we are doing our best to improve our performance. We know we can do better because our rail reliability has indeed been better in the last few years. But even with the recent disruptions, our MRT system remains one of the most reliable in the world.
Train delays happen in every system, in every city. Our phones and computers have to be restarted every now and then. Cars will break down too. So will our trains. We want to absolutely minimise disruptions because of the inconvenience to commuters, and we will work doubly hard to do so. But what is equally important is when a disruption inevitably happens, we can support commuters and guide them to continuing their journeys safely, with their understanding and cooperation.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
\tMs Yeo Wan Ling (Punggol): Mr Speaker, while we wait for the assessment from LTA and the Rail Reliability Taskforce, I note that the SPLRT reliability is being closely monitored, and our transport and maintenance workers are working hard to maintain high reliability for our commuters. With an ageing infrastructure and higher commuter demands with the new Punggol infrastructure, like the Punggol Digital District and the Singapore Institute of Technology coming online, how can the Ministry support and resource our operators better on top of creating redundancy systems, as Minister has updated, to implement safety and condition monitoring systems? How can we also ensure that our workers are equipped with the latest skills and knowledge especially with the manpower development package that looks into upskilling our workers come to a funding end?
\t
\tMr Jeffrey Siow: I thank Ms Yeo for her question. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been working very closely with the unions and with the rail operators on making sure that we are not just upgrading the hardware of the systems but also the software. We want to make sure that the workers who are working on maintaining train reliability are of the right capabilities and the right skills and also are able to manage the new systems that are coming on board, as we upgrade the systems with new technology and new capabilities are needed. And that is why the fund that Ms Yeo mentioned has been very useful for us to support the workers who are then able to deal with these new systems and to maintain them well.
The operators also have a Rail Reliability Fund and we work with them to try to encourage them, with incentives, to focus on training their workers, building up their capabilities, ensuring that they are able to do the things that they need to do.
So, all in all, I think there is a collaborative effort. We are working very hard with the support of the unions to make sure that the workforce is capable and can do the things that we need them to do every day, every night.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Sir, I thank the Minister for sharing on the technical details of the breakdown of the BPLRT. We are all now too familiar with the inherent technical challenges that the BPLRT system has. We do appreciate that it is operating in a pretty challenging ground terrain in Bukit Panjang. So, in that context, I want to ask the Minister whether LTA will consider adding more buses to run parallel to the BPLRT system, as a way to enhance resiliency and also as a measure to cope with the increasing ridership as the town's population is also increasing.
\tMr Jeffrey Siow: I thank Mr Liang for his question. Indeed, Mr Liang and I are both very familiar with ins and outs literally of the BPLRT for a number of reasons. We were together, working on transport issues a decade ago. I have as much vested interest if not more, since BPLRT passes both our constituencies.
I want to thank him for his suggestion. The BPLRT's reliability has generally improved, I think, over the years. It is a unique system. It was retroactively fitted in, unlike the SPLRT which was built from scratch. Over the last 10 years, in fact, we have been working on a systemic upgrade of the LRT – the power system, the trains. We are almost complete and I think the results are showing. The reliability has indeed been better.
As for bus services, today, there are already several bus services that run parallel to complement the LRT. For example, I think Service 976 was launched in 2019 specifically to support commuters during the renewal works. And together with Service 974, these services connect Choa Chu Kang and Bukit Panjang Interchanges and serve many of the same neighbourhoods as the LRT. We also have Services 920, 922 and 972 which provide alternative first-mile, last-mile connections within Bukit Panjang.
I would certainly review the Member's suggestion to introduce more parallel-run bus services, but we will have to consider other factors like ridership, availability of bus captains, as you know, which is a key constraint for us, as well as to prioritise these relative to requests for bus services in other areas.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
\tMr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Speaker, two supplementary questions for the Minister.
The first, in relation to the question on the penalties and the incidents specifically, I understand that in relation to last year's East-West Line (EWL) breakdown for about six days, I think the penalty was reduced from $3 million to $2.4 million. I wanted to double check, specifically on the Rapid Transit Systems Act, the operators can be fined to a maximum of higher of $1 million or 10% of the fare revenues. And so, with a reduction in the fine, would the Minister be concerned that the deterrent effect would actually be lessened as a result?
The second supplementary question, in relation to the 15 key incidents that LTA has put out last Friday, for these incidents, I note that the Government will be putting in an additional $1 billion to raise the reliability and maintenance standards. What are the corresponding requirements on the part of each of the operators, in terms of the additional investments that they may have to put in? And at the same time, given the incidents, the Ministry's view on the financial penalties that have been imposed?
\t
\t
\tMr Jeffrey Siow: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you, Mr Chua, for your questions. You have two questions. First, let me take the second one on the financial penalties and the responsibility of the public transport operators (PTOs), in terms of using the $1 billion and what their financial commitment is.
Before I do that, I will briefly explain how LTA assesses penalties. We assess financial penalties for very serious disruptions and we do so by looking at the culpability of the operators in terms of their contribution to that. Sometimes, it is not the PTO's doing. Sometimes, there are situations where it is human error, for example, passengers doing things. It has nothing to do with the operators. They may cause a disruption but it does not affect the operator and therefore, they are not liable to regulatory action.
Insofar as specific incidents, for the systems that are affected, we will look at what solution is required. If it is a hardware upgrade, it is an asset upgrade, the current system is really a joint process between LTA and the operator. LTA, of course, is responsible for asset ownership, in some ways, asset renewal as well. We work closely with the operators on the ground to prioritise some of these things and use the monies accordingly.
For the first question, which is related to the penalties and whether or not, with respect to the earlier incident last September, whether the reduction in the penalties would have a deterrent effect, as the Member pointed out, the penalties are fairly significant. The penalty we have issued is well above the $1 million threshold. It is higher. We had given them a $3 million dollar penalty and we had, after appeal, reduced their penalty to about $2 million.
I think it is a fair decision, one that we have looked at, looking at, again, the respective responsibilities and culpability of the operator. They have made a case to say there were certain decisions that perhaps were out of their remit. We have looked at their case and we have decided to reduce the penalties accordingly. I think it was a reasonable decision. The details of the decision, we have already come out to talk about it. We can give you more information if needed.
\tMr Speaker: We are approaching the end of Question Time. I am going to allow the last three supplementary questions for those who have filed PQs on this. So, Ms Tin, Ms Poh and Mr Ng Chee Meng. Starting with Ms Tin Pei Ling.
\tMs Tin Pei Ling (Marine Parade-Braddell Heights): I have two supplementary questions.
The first one is that I think so far, reports in the media as well as what have been shared in this House seem to suggest that there have been no observed trends or at least systemic factors causing the recent spate of incidents since July. But it would definitely seem like really terrible luck for all of these to happen in such a short span of time.
With more lines to be added to the system, there will be more assets to be maintained, more manpower, more budget that will be needed. How will the Ministry of Transport (MOT) and the PTOs work to assure that our rail performance will continue to be reliable going forward?
Second, given what the Minister had shared earlier about the example of how one disruption can greatly reduce the MKBF and achieving of the target, is this still a fair measurement of rail reliability?
\t
\tMr Jeffrey Siow: I thank Ms Tin for her questions. I took a look at the number of disruptions for the corresponding period last year. It was about 13, compared to 15 this year. I was trying to figure out, with the same numbers, why is it that there was so much attention this year. My hypothesis, which I think is probably likely, is that the impact of the individual disruptions was far greater than for the ones that happened last year.
As Ms Tin mentioned, as we expand the rail network and we are in the process of doubling our rail network over 10 years, if we are able to not double the number of train disruptions, actually our rail reliability would have improved.
That is not to say we will not put in effort to minimise the number of train disruptions. We will put in our effort, we will more than double our effort to do so. But this is mathematics, this is reality. I think we have to see what we can do to try our best to improve the standards over time, improve the quality, but it is not possible for us to drive down to zero disruptions.
Therefore, looking at the MKBF, as I mentioned in my speech, it is actually not very meaningful beyond high levels of rail reliability, not meaningful when you have small numbers, single-digit disruptions. What it does help is give a general indicator for two reasons. One, it helps us compare with other systems who also use the same indicator and two, it helps us track our performance over time. To that end, as I mentioned in my speech, LTA does track other indicators. We will put out more of these indicators so that all of us will have a better sense of how our rail performance is.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.
\tMs Poh Li San (Sembawang West): Thank you, Speaker and Minister. I would like to first commend our PTOs and also LTA for keeping our MKBF one of the highest in the world. In light of that, I would like to ask the Minister, under the new rail financing framework, how does LTA ensure that the suppliers are held accountable for the contractual obligations for the train systems' availability and their lifespan? Because at the end of day, the quality of the train at the point of procurement is really important as well.
\tMr Jeffrey Siow: I thank Ms Poh for her question. Under the new rail financing framework, LTA is responsible for the ownership and renewal of assets. The operators are responsible for maintenance.
There is no perfect system. Prior to the new rail financing framework, it was the operators that were responsible for the asset renewal. There were similar tensions between the regulator and the operator on who should be doing what. I think what is important is that both the regulator and the operator work together to make sure that we understand the causes of problems in the system, understand how the equipment works, when the equipment should be replaced or repaired, and to be able to do so openly and in a collaborative fashion.
In fact, this is what we have been doing over the last decade and this has in fact been, I think, the main reason why the rail reliability performance has improved.
We will, at the edges, have to try to improve the communications and performance. The operators are on the ground, they have some experience, they know what they are supposed to do and they have certain things that they are supposed to do. The regulator or rather the purchaser, in this case, LTA, of the assets will also have to work with the vendor to make sure that, whatever it is, their responsibilities are properly accomplished.
During the last few disruptions, I have sat in for the crisis management meetings. The vendors were there. In the cases of some of the vendors, they sit in with our operator. They have an office within the depot or the operation centre so that they are able to react more quickly. It is things like that we will continue to do to make sure that the vendors are closely involved with what we do.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Ng Chee Meng.
\tMr Ng Chee Meng (Jalan Kayu): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his clarifications. I would like to put on public record my appreciation for LTA, SBST and SMRT for the good work on the ground.
Two supplementary questions for the Minister. One is on the expansion of the rail system and therefore, the increasing complexities of maintenance. How would MOT or LTA put in the necessary finances, the necessary engineering time and, equally important, like what my colleague Yeo Wan Ling has asked, the training regimes so that we would be able to maintain an increased network of complexity to serve the public.
On the second supplementary question, more pertaining to Jalan Kayu, we know that the NEL and the SPLRT are very congested systems. While we do the good work to rectify some of the breakdowns, the commuters do face increased inconveniences, especially for Fernvale, Jalan Kayu, where the bus connectivity is somewhat lacking. My supplementary question to the Minister is whether LTA would take proactive action to improve the overall connectivity, especially the bus services in Fernvale, Jalan Kayu so that residents can be connected out to other nodes and not, regardless of different improvements, load the NEL?
\tMr Jeffrey Siow: I thank Mr Ng for his question. Maybe I will take the second one first because I am very familiar with the NEL. I have taken the NEL since its inception in 2003. In fact, that is the reason why I took my first job.
I have seen the NEL grow in capacity. In terms of how it has been performing, I have watched it closely. It is an MRT line that we are watching very closely. As the Member mentioned, the congestion is one of the highest in our MRT network. We have been looking to see how to alleviate the congestion and just making sure that the reliability is okay so that the impact is not so great, especially during peak hours.
The ultimate solution is to connect the NEL to more train lines. This is what we are doing. We are building the Cross Island Line, I have to try to make sure things are okay for the next five years, but I think when the Cross Island Line connects to Hougang, it will make the NEL more resilient because commuters will be able to discharge to some other routes on the train network.
In the meantime, we are looking at how to augment the bus network. But buses, ultimately, are not a good solution because the capacity of one NEL train is 1,500 people. That is 15 to 20 buses, end to end. Just for one train. That is not forgetting that each train runs at two-minute intervals currently on the NEL.
So, buses will never be a complete substitute. But at the margins, if it can help, we will try to see how we can augment bus capacity along the NEL corridor.
As for how to support the workers in terms of training regimes, finance and getting them up to speed on the new systems that are available, as I mentioned earlier in my reply to Ms Yeo, we have to work very closely with the unions and operators. I have visited the workers themselves. They not only do the work on the day-to-day basis, they also go for quite a bit of training. I think whenever they engage with new systems, they are actually quite excited. Hydraulics systems, even things like condition monitoring. These are new things that we have been investing in in terms of technology.
In the rest of the world, public transport systems do not tend to be highly advanced because most public transport systems do not get a lot of investments and money. In Singapore, we have invested a lot of money. The operators are doing a lot of things in terms of maintenance on condition monitoring, which they showcase to other systems and other cities at international rail conferences.
So, we are doing what we can. There is no shortage of investment on that front. We will be happy to work with the unions to see whether or not there are other things that we can do to support our workers on upgrading themselves.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Introduction of Government Bills. Acting Minister for Transport.
[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":"Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (Amendment) Bill ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore Act 2009 to establish the sustainable aviation fuel fund, to provide for the imposition of a sustainable aviation fuel levy and for related purposes, and to make miscellaneous amendments\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Senior Minister of State for Transport (Ms Sun Xueling) on behalf of the Acting Minister for Transport; 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":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to make miscellaneous amendments to certain Acts\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) on behalf of the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health; 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":"CareShield Life and Long-Term Care (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the CareShield Life and Long-Term Care Act 2019\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Koh Poh Koon) on behalf of the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health; 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":"Proceedings on Ministerial Statements","subTitle":"Business Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I move, that, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, (1) my Ministerial Statement on \"Duties and Privileges of the Leader of the Opposition\" be taken now and before the business Motion on Speech Time standing in my name; and (2) that the following Ministerial Statements: namely, (a) the Ministerial Statement on \"Situation in the Middle East\" standing in the name of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, (b) the Ministerial Statement on \"Situation in the Middle East\" to be delivered by the Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and (c) the Ministerial Statement on \"Singaporeans’ Response to Situation in the Middle East\" standing in the name of the Acting Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs, be taken in that order after the business Motion on Speech Time standing in my name and before the Motion for the Address of Thanks.
For the benefit of new Members, under the Standing Orders, the debate on the Address of Thanks ordinarily takes precedence over Ministerial Statements and business Motions should be disposed of before the debate on the Address of Thanks takes place. I am moving this business Motion for two reasons. First, my Ministerial Statement on \"Duties and Privileges of the Leader of the Opposition\" sets out the Leader of the Opposition's duties and privileges for this term of Parliament. It would thus be apposite for my Ministerial Statement to be taken before the rest of the proceedings at this Sitting, including the debate on the Address of Thanks.
I am also moving that my Ministerial Statement be taken before the business Motion on Speech Time, standing in my name as the two are closely related.
Second, the two Ministerial Statements on \"Situation in the Middle East\" and the Ministerial Statement on \"Singaporeans' Response to Situation in the Middle East\" are of current public interest. Also, Minister Vivian Balakrishnan is due to deliver Singapore's statement at the 80th United Nations General Assembly and leaves for that tonight. It would be good for Singaporeans to hear the Government's position on this before he leaves. It would thus be best for these Ministerial Statements to be taken before the debate on the Address of Thanks. Members will have sufficient time to seek clarification on these Ministerial Statements.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That notwithstanding the Standing Orders, (1) the Ministerial Statement on 'Duties and Privileges of the Leader of the Opposition' be taken now and before the business Motion on Speech Time standing in the name of the Leader of the House; and (2) that the following Ministerial Statements: (a) the Ministerial Statement on 'Situation in the Middle East' standing in the name of the Minister for Foreign Affairs; (b) the Ministerial Statement on 'Situation in the Middle East' to be delivered by the Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs; and (c) the Ministerial Statement on 'Singaporeans’ Response to Situation in the Middle East' standing in the name of the Acting Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs, be taken in that order after the business Motion on Speech Time standing in the name of the Leader of the House and before the Motion for the Address of Thanks\". (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Duties and Privileges of the Leader of the Opposition","subTitle":"Statement by Leader of the House","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, following the General Election held on 3 May 2025, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong had announced that Mr Pritam Singh would continue to be the Leader of the Opposition in the 15th Parliament of Singapore and that he would be given staff and resources to perform his duties. This was reported in the media.
As the position of the Leader of the Opposition is not dealt with in our Constitution or in the Standing Orders of Parliament, I should, for good order, state the duties and privileges of the Leader of the Opposition for the Parliamentary record.
Mr Singh’s duties and privileges as the Leader of the Opposition in this 15th Parliament will remain the same as those in the 14th Parliament. Those were set out in my Ministerial Statement of 31 August 2020 when the office of the Leader of the Opposition was officially recognised and implemented. They can be summarised as follows.
First, on the Leader of the Opposition’s Parliamentary privileges. The Leader of the Opposition will take the seat directly across the Prime Minister in this Chamber during Parliamentary proceedings. This is the same practice as that in other countries which formally recognise the role of the Leader of the Opposition and was also observed by us in previous terms of Parliament in Singapore in respect of the leader of the main opposition party.
The Leader of the Opposition will generally be given the right of first response among Members of Parliament (MPs) to ask the lead question of Ministers on policies, Bills and Motions in Parliament. This will be at the Speaker’s discretion and subject to existing speaking conventions. The Leader of the Opposition will have a longer speech time for debates than other backbenchers – 40 minutes as opposed to the usual 20 minutes. I will be moving a Motion to this effect later.
The Leader of the Opposition will also be allocated an office in Parliament, staff support and resources, and his Parliamentary allowance will be double that of other MPs. I have consulted the Speaker on these arrangements and he has agreed that they remain appropriate. I have also apprised Mr Singh of this.
Next, I touch on the Leader of the Opposition’s Parliamentary duties. The 15th Parliament of Singapore is our largest Parliament to date with 99 elected Members. There are 12 opposition Members, of whom two are Non-Constituency MPs. As the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Singh will lead and organise the Opposition’s Parliamentary business in our largest Parliament to date. This includes leading the Opposition in: presenting alternative views in Parliamentary debates on policies, Bills and Motions; scrutinising the Government’s positions and actions in Parliament; and nominating opposition Members for appointment to the Standing Select Committees and other Select Committees of Parliament.
Finally, the Leader of the Opposition may be called upon to assume other duties, such as attending official state functions and taking part in visits and meetings alongside Members of the Government and the Public Service. From time to time, the Leader of the Opposition may receive confidential briefings by the Government, on matters to be determined by the Government. These briefings will promote better understanding across both sides of the House on important national issues such as security and external relations, especially in the event of a national crisis or emergency.
I congratulate Mr Singh on his continuation as the Leader of the Opposition. I look forward to working with him on this Parliament’s mission to serve Singaporeans and build a stronger Singapore.
Mr Speaker: As Speaker, I would also like to take this occasion to formally welcome Mr Pritam Singh as Leader of the Opposition in this 15th Parliament of Singapore.
The position of the Leader of the Opposition, and the duties and privileges accorded to the position, was first given formal recognition in the 14th Parliament. The arrangements have worked out well and Parliamentary proceedings have gone on smoothly. Such arrangements will continue in this 15th Parliament – a second time the position is formally recognised – with Mr Pritam Singh continuing to lead and to organise the Opposition’s Parliamentary business.
The role of the Leader of the Opposition could continue to evolve in future. The position’s duties and privileges may then be correspondingly updated, where necessary, to best meet Singapore’s Parliamentary context, bearing in mind the objective of having the opposition scrutinise the Government’s positions and actions in Parliament, and presenting alternative views and proposals for debate.
Having worked with both the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition in the 14th Parliament, I ask for their support and continued cooperation across the aisle, which will ensure that all Members, regardless of party, uphold the House’s decorum, dignity and honour at all times. I look forward to working with them once again to conduct Parliamentary business and debates in an orderly, efficient and constructive manner in this 15th Parliament of Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Speech Time for the Leader of the Opposition","subTitle":"Business Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I move, that notwithstanding Standing Order 48(8), with effect from this day's Sitting until the end of the 15th Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition Mr Pritam Singh shall be entitled to speak for up to 40 minutes on any question in Parliament. This is to allow Mr Pritam Singh, as the Leader of the Opposition for the 15th Parliament, the privilege of a longer speaking duration for speeches, as mentioned in my Ministerial Statement earlier.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That, notwithstanding Standing Order 48(8), with effect from this day's Sitting until the end of the 15th Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition Mr Pritam Singh shall be entitled to speak for up to 40 minutes on any question in Parliament\". (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Situation in the Middle East","subTitle":"Statements by Minister for Foreign Affairs and Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Ministerial Statement by Minister for Foreign Affairs.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Mr Speaker, Sir,\tI wish to make a Ministerial Statement on the situation in the Middle East. Senior Minister of State Ms Sim Ann and the Acting Minister-in-Charge of Muslim Affairs Assoc Prof Muhammad Faishal will subsequently deliver their Ministerial Statements addressing related issues.
Let me start by sketching the international context.
The Israeli conduct of the war in Gaza and the other actions they have taken in the West Bank has sparked renewed efforts by the international community to press Israel to change course. Recently, Singapore and a large majority of the member states at the United Nations (UN) General Assembly voted in favour of a resolution endorsing the New York Declaration to support the two-state solution. This resolution reflected widespread concern that the two-state solution is being eroded by Israel’s actions. Around 10 countries may announce recognition of Palestine later today at the UN. For some of them, the recognition will be conditional, predicated on the Palestinian Authority's commitment to renounce terrorism and to conduct administrative reform. They also expect, perhaps wishfully, for Hamas to disarm and to release all the hostages.
I will now lay out Singapore’s position on the recognition of Palestinian statehood. Allow me to start by setting out Singapore's national interests.
Singapore is a multiracial, multi-religious city state in the heart of Southeast Asia. Given our circumstances, that means we have three priorities. The first is maintaining national unity. The long-standing complicated tragedy of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict elicits strong and diverse reactions amongst Singaporeans. This is completely understandable. But we must express these different perspectives respectfully. We cannot allow external events or actors to cause fissures in our society. National policies and especially, foreign policy positions, must be based on Singapore's national interests and not on communal or religious perspectives; and we must never allow outsiders to exploit potential domestic fissures within our own society.
The second is protecting Singapore's security. We must never be complacent about the threat of terrorism and military conflict. As a small and open nation, we cannot condone terrorism in any form. We must never accept any excuse or any justification for the wanton killing of innocent civilians and the taking of hostages. Actually, whenever a terrorist incident occurs overseas, the questions that go through my mind are the following: \"What if this had happened in Singapore? How would Singapore respond? What actions would our military and security agencies have to undertake? What would our diplomats say the next day at the United Nations?\"
This is why we supported Israel's right of self-defence after the 7 October terrorist attacks, because if anything similar were to ever happen in Singapore, have no doubt, we would assert the same right of self-defence.
We also, for the sake of our security, need to maintain cooperation with international partners. This is to enhance our defence and our security capabilities and to keep Singapore safe. We all know that Israel helped us to build up the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) in our earliest years of Independence, when we were most vulnerable. This unique security relationship remains invaluable to us. But this does not stop us from conveying our views directly to the Israeli government, clearly and constructively, when we do not agree with their actions. We have done so and we will continue to do so.
The third is promoting respect for and compliance with international law. Singapore relies on clear rules and norms to safeguard our sovereignty as a tiny city state. A world based on \"might is right\" is fundamentally inimical to small states like us. So, it means Singapore must abide by and uphold international law consistently.
These three priorities surrounding our national interests have shaped our approach to the conflict in Gaza. On 7 October 2023 itself, Singapore immediately condemned the terrorist attack on Israel by Hamas and we recognised Israel's right of self-defence, in accordance with international law and the United Nations (UN) Charter. We have always and repeatedly called for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages.
But in exercising its right to defend itself, Israel must comply with international humanitarian law. That includes the principle of proportionality in warfare. And our view is that Israel's actions in Gaza have gone too far, for too long. Israel's military operations, which have recently intensified in Gaza City, have exacerbated the prolonged, desperate suffering of innocent civilians. This is unconscionable. The scale of civilian death is harrowing. More than 60,000 people have been reportedly killed and a third of them children. Singapore condemns the killing of innocent civilians.
The humanitarian situation in Gaza is shocking. An estimated 90% of homes have been destroyed or damaged. Schools, hospitals, places of worship have been struck. Around 1.9 million or 90% of Gazans have been internally displaced. Medical services are incapacitated and overwhelmed. Gaza is dangerously close to famine levels and this was entirely preventable. We have all seen the heart wrenching pictures of Gazans, including young children scavenging for food. The deliberate and unlawful denial of humanitarian aid to a civilian population is completely unacceptable.
In our view, these excessive actions by the Israel government may even be a breach of international humanitarian law. The UN's Independent International Commission of Inquiry recently concluded that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. This matter is currently before the International Court of Justice, which is the appropriate forum to adjudicate such grave concerns.
In recent weeks, more aid, including from Singapore, has entered Gaza, but this is still woefully inadequate. Much more humanitarian supplies are urgently needed. Israel has a responsibility to facilitate this. It must lift all restrictions on its delivery and to allow the full and unimpeded flow of humanitarian aid. Palestinians must be enabled to access this aid safely and with dignity.
Singapore will continue to do what we can to contribute to international efforts to alleviate civilian suffering in Gaza. So far, the Government and Singaporeans have contributed 10 tranches of humanitarian aid. This includes the latest contribution by the Singapore Red Cross of about $1.2 million through the Egyptian Red Crescent, which was just announced during President Tharman Shanmugaratnam's State Visit to Egypt. Last month, SAF air-dropped urgent humanitarian aid to the Palestinians. In fact, this was the second air-drop operation conducted by SAF. We are grateful to our SAF Servicemen and women for stepping up to do this, to express our compassion.
Singapore will do more. And under our tenth tranche, we will support the following.
First, Egyptian hospitals in treating injured Palestinians. In fact, right now, a team of Singaporean doctors and clinicians are currently in Cairo to support the Nasser Institute in case consultations, for the more complicated cases. The SAF has deployed two liaison officers, based in Cairo, to coordinate Singapore's assistance in-theatre. We are working to deploy another medical team to Egypt to help treat even more patients from Gaza, when the conditions are conducive. Second, Jordan's Restoring Hope Initiative for Gaza. We will provide prosthetics supplies for about 100 Palestinian amputees who are being treated in Jordan and in Jordanian field hospitals in Gaza. Third, the World Food Programme's efforts to fight hunger in Gaza. We will contribute US$500,000.
All these efforts will bring our total humanitarian assistance for Gaza to more than $24 million.
Singapore will continue to support international efforts in the day-after scenarios, including through the Arab Reconstruction Plan. It is too early for specifics, but we will contribute financially and in-kind. But there needs, first, to be a permanent ceasefire and the hostages must be released unconditionally. Only then can physical reconstruction and healing begin.
On the issue of peacekeeping, which Mr Saktiandi Supaat has asked about, whilst the idea of a UN stabilisation mission in Gaza is being discussed informally, there is currently no formal proposal for a UN peacekeeping force in Gaza at the UN Security Council (UNSC). Singapore will study any UNSC resolution on this issue carefully and we will assess how we can support its implementation if it comes to pass in future.
Let me now turn to the issue of recognition. Singapore has made our position clear. In fact, we had changed our position in May last year. Let me state our position as of today. We will recognise the State of Palestine when it has an effective government that accepts Israel's right to exist and categorically renounces terrorism.
Allow me to take you through a brief review of history to put this position in context.
The two-state solution arose in 1947, when the UN General Assembly recommended the partition of the British Mandate of Palestine into separate Arab and Jewish states. Jerusalem, under this same resolution, was supposed to be a separate, internationally administered entity. Unfortunately, the decades since then, have been littered with missed opportunities by both sides. For instance, the two-state formulation was accepted by the Jewish leadership in 1947 but rejected by the Arabs. The Jewish leadership took what was on the table, declared Independence, war broke out in 1948. In fact, it is only in November 1988 did the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) implicitly accept Israel's right to exist. This is back in 1988 and they proclaimed the State of Israel. And Singapore welcomed this Proclamation is because we viewed it as significant progress towards a two-state solution.
Unfortunately, notwithstanding the Oslo Accords in 1993 and 1995, none of the subsequent attempts to reach a final status agreement succeeded. In January 2006, Hamas won the Palestinian Legislative Council elections and its leader, Ismail Haniyeh, formed the government on the basis of a majority. But this was largely rejected by the international community, given Hamas' refusal to recognise Israel's right to exist, its rejection of peaceful co-existence and its propagation of terrorism. In June 2007, Hamas violently seized Gaza from the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority and has ruled in Gaza by force ever since then and there have been no elections in the Occupied Palestinian Territories for two decades.
So, two points are evident. First, whilst the Palestinian Authority administers the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the West Bank, it does not de facto control Gaza. Gaza is ruled by Hamas. For the last 18 years at least, there has not been a unified Palestinian government that exercises effective control in Palestinian Territories, including the West Bank and Gaza. What will happen in Gaza after the ceasefire remains unclear.
Second point, Hamas has consistently rejected Israel's right to exist. It has yet to renounce terrorism or agree to disarm. In fact, Hamas has vowed to repeat the terrorist attacks of 7 October, if given the opportunity again. On the other hand, Singapore enjoys good relations with the Palestinian Authority. We welcome its commitment to renounce terrorism, to carry out reforms and to disarm Hamas, as President Mahmoud Abbas stated in his letter to French President Emmanuel Macron in June this year. However, it remains to be seen whether the Palestinian Authority can really disarm and displace Hamas from Gaza.
We can hope, but hope, on its own, is not a reality. So, we will closely monitor the fulfilment of these commitments made by the Palestinian Authority.
Ultimately, to resolve this longstanding conflict in a comprehensive, just and durable manner, there needs to be a negotiated settlement which results in two states, one Israeli, one Palestinian, with their peoples living alongside each other in peace, security and dignity.
It seems like an impossible dream. As difficult and distant as it may now seem, nevertheless, we believe this is still the only viable pathway to a lasting peace. Singapore will continue to support any initiative to resume negotiations between the parties involved towards this ultimate goal.
Our position should not come as a surprise to people within this House and to our citizens outside Parliament. Singapore has consistently affirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and their own state. Our voting record at the United Nations (UN) consistently reflects this.
Last year, we voted in favour of several resolutions which expressed support for the admission of Palestine as a UN member and affirmed the Palestinians' right to self-determination. We have also supported Palestine's right to be a \"non-member observer state\" in various international organisations, including the International Labour Organization and the Universal Postal Union, just to cite some examples.
So, what are the prospects for a two-state solution?
Regrettably, extremist elements on both sides continue to actively undermine the prospects for a two-state solution. Hamas has consistently said, \"No.\" At the same time, there are Israeli settlers who continue to displace Palestinians in the West Bank. Some Israeli politicians have spoken explicitly about annexing parts of the West Bank or Gaza. Recently, the Israeli government signed an agreement to proceed with the so-called E1 settlement project in the West Bank. This will fragment the West Bank and threaten the contiguity of Arab towns in the Occupied Palestinian Territories even further.
Let me be clear. Singapore has consistently held that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law. We have voted in support of UN resolutions that reject Israeli settlement activities and we have called on Israel to rescind all unilateral measures seeking to change the status of Jerusalem. We call on the Israeli government to cease settlement construction and expansion. We oppose ongoing attempts to create new facts on the ground which undermine the prospects for a two-state solution.
Consequently, Singapore will impose targeted sanctions on the leaders of radical right-wing settler groups or organisations that have been responsible for acts of violence against Palestinians in the West Bank. Details will be announced at a later date. But this is a significant change.
Mr Speaker, Singapore’s approach to foreign policy is grounded on objective realities. In the case of Palestine, this is what we meant when we said that there is a need for an effective Palestinian government that accepts Israel's right to exist and categorically renounces terrorism. This has also been the prevailing view amongst many countries that see recognition as a meaningful step towards the ultimate goal of a negotiated two-state solution.
But yesterday and today, a few countries have chosen to change their position and to formally recognise the Palestinian state now, even as the prospects of a functioning state have in fact become more remote. They do so precisely to express their grave concern at the status quo and they hope that this will make it harder for Israel to extinguish a two-state solution altogether.
Singapore, so far, has maintained our position while doing as much as we can to help the Palestinian Authority strengthen their capabilities for future statehood. Singapore's support for a two-state solution means we will oppose any steps by Israel to extinguish or undermine such a solution. Singapore cannot recognise any unilateral annexation of occupied territory because this would be a flagrant breach of international law.
We will continue to track developments closely. Events are unfolding quickly and remain unpredictable. If the situation continues to deteriorate or if Israel takes further steps to extinguish a two-state solution, we will reconsider our position on recognising a Palestinian state.
In the meantime, Singapore will step up concrete, constructive support for the Palestinians in preparation for their eventual statehood. We will continue to support the Palestinian Authority's capacity-building efforts.
Our S$10 million Enhanced Technical Assistance Package has already benefitted more than 800 Palestinian officials. We will offer more scholarships for Palestinian students as well as community policing and leadership programmes. We established a Representative Office in Ramallah in 2022, which has been a focal point for our capacity-building efforts.
We have to continue engaging both the Palestinian Authority and Israel. I know there have been calls to cut diplomatic ties, but doing so would diminish our ability to communicate with Israel and, frankly, serve no practical purpose. Diplomacy is not just about engaging when there is agreement. It is arguably even more important when there is disagreement.
I recently had candid, open discussions with both my Israeli and Palestinian counterparts. I made it clear to Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar that we see the deliberate and unlawful denial of humanitarian aid to civilians as a breach of international humanitarian law. I told him that Israel's military response had gone on too far, for too long. The scope and the casualties were beyond what could be justified. I added that Israel's actions were inimical to its own long-term strategic and security interests.
Our links with both sides are useful, not just to get our point across, but also, in a very real way, for facilitating our humanitarian assistance for Palestinians, especially in Gaza. We have worked with both our Arab regional partners on this as well as with the Israelis, whose concurrence is essential for these efforts on the ground.
Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim has asked about our efforts to ensure that Israel abides by international law. When principles are breached, we speak our mind clearly. We will continue to call out actions by all and any side, including by the Israelis or Hamas, that breach international law.
Earlier this month, we had to call out Israel's airstrikes on Doha as a blatant violation of Qatar's sovereignty. We have also said that the deliberate and unlawful denial of humanitarian aid to civilians and people reportedly being shot while desperately trying to access food, in our view, is a violation of international humanitarian law.
Let me conclude by acknowledging a hard truth, which I hope both sides will grasp, in the spirit in which Singapore makes this point.
Territorial and political compromise is essential if this conflict is ever to be resolved. The Israeli people and the Palestinian people both exist as an objective reality. Both have claims to a sovereign state in their ancestral homeland. There can be no \"river to the sea\" for either side, because if you really try to effect that, some terrible consequences follow from that logically.
As a friend to the people on both sides, we only hope that in time, there will be political will, there will be inspired leadership on both sides to enter into direct negotiations on a two-state solution, consistent with the relevant UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions.
Mr Speaker, with your permission, may I ask that I respond to clarifications from Members after the Senior Minister of State Sim Ann and the Acting Minister Faishal have made their respective Ministerial Statements? We can then take all clarifications collectively.
Mr Speaker: The Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and the Acting Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs will be making related Ministerial Statements. I will allow Members to raise points of clarification on all three Statements after the end of the third Statement. Senior Minister of State Sim Ann.
The Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Ms Sim Ann): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to deliver the Statement of the behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs?
Mr Speaker: Go ahead.
Ms Sim Ann: Mr Speaker, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, following Minister Vivian Balakrishnans Ministerial Statement on Singapore's position on the situation in the Middle East, I wish to address the same topic in Mandarin. I last did so during the 2024 Committee of Supply debate.
There was a need to do so, because the diverse composition of Singapore's society means that different groups have different degrees of awareness and interest in the matter. Their reactions are also different.
Some see the Israel-Hamas conflict as one that has a long and complex history, and very distant from Singapore, while others care deeply about the fate of Palestine, particularly the pain and suffering of civilians in Gaza, and have strong views about the foreign policy stance Singapore should take.
This is why the Middle East situation has been featured in many Parliamentary Questions, as well as a dedicated debate in Parliament. It has the potential to trigger disagreements, even intense disputes, on social media as well as political platforms. If not handled well, it can also affect our social unity.
Hence, the Government has been explaining our approach and position carefully.
Singapore immediately condemned the terrorist attacks on Israel by Hamas on 7 October 2023, and recognised Israel's right to self-defence in accordance with international law and the UN Charter. We have always and repeatedly called for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages taken by Hamas.
We have called out Israel's actions in Gaza, which have gone too far for too long. Israel's military operations have exacerbated the prolonged, desperate suffering of innocent civilians. Singapore will continue to do what we can to contribute to international efforts to alleviate civilian suffering in Gaza. With our latest tenth tranche of aid, the Government and Singaporeans have contributed over S$24 million of humanitarian assistance for Gaza.
Singapore believes that a negotiated two-state solution, consistent with the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions, is the only viable pathway to a comprehensive, just, and durable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As a friend of both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples, we hope that they will be able to live side-by-side in peace, security and dignity one day.
In recent months, the situation in the Middle East has become more dire, despite the attempts of multiple countries to mediate and bring about a ceasefire. The scale of civilian death is harrowing. More than 60,000 people have reportedly been killed – a third of them children. Schools, hospitals and places of worship have been struck; medical services are incapacitated and overwhelmed. Gaza is dangerously close to famine levels, which was entirely preventable.
The United Nations’ Independent International Commission of Inquiry recently concluded that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. The matter is now before the International Court of Justice. These events have further upset those who have been closely following the situation, including some Singaporeans.
As a multiracial and multireligious country situated in the heart of Southeast Asia, our national interests dictate that we have three priorities.
The first, is maintaining national unity. I have explained earlier why the issue can impact national unity. While Singaporeans may have strong and diverse reactions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is essential for us to express our viewpoints respectfully and be open to different perspectives.
National policies, especially foreign policy positions, must be based on Singapore’s national interests and not on communal or religious perspectives. We cannot allow external events and actors to cause fissures in our society or exploit potential fissures in our society.
The second, is protecting Singapore’s security. As a small and open nation, we cannot condone terrorism in any form. We had supported Israel's right of self-defence after the 7 October terrorist attacks, because if something similar happened to Singapore, we would certainly assert that same right. We also need to maintain cooperation with international partners to enhance our defence and security capabilities and to keep Singapore safe. Israel helped us build up the SAF in our early years of independence when we were most vulnerable. This unique security relationship remains invaluable to us.
But this does not stop us from conveying our views directly to the Israeli government, clearly and respectfully, when we do not agree with their actions. We have done so and will continue to do so.
The third, is promoting respect for, and compliance with, international law. A world based on \"might is right\" is fundamentally inimical to small states. Singaporeans are very familiar with the reasons why. Hence, we spoke up and said that the deliberate and unlawful denial of humanitarian aid to a civilian population is completely unacceptable. In our view, the excessive actions by the Israel government may even be a breach of international humanitarian law.
Singapore will continue to do what we can to contribute to international efforts to alleviate civilian suffering in Gaza. Under our tenth tranche of aid, we will:
First, support Egyptian hospitals in treating injured Palestinians.
Second, support Jordan’s Restoring Hope Initiative, which will provide prosthetics supplies for about 100 Palestinian amputees being treated in Jordan and in Gaza.
Third, support the World Food Programme’s efforts to fight hunger in Gaza with a contribution of US$500,000.
On the question of recognition of Palestine, Singapore has consistently affirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and their own state. In many instances, Singapore has voted in support of the Palestinians at the UN.
We have made clear our position on the recognition of Palestine. We will recognise the State of Palestine when it has an effective government that accepts Israel’s right to exist and categorically renounces terrorism. This has been our consistent position which we have maintained so far, while doing as much as we can to help strengthen the Palestinian Authority's capabilities.
However, we are concerned that extremist elements on both sides continue to undermine the prospects for a negotiated two-state solution. Hamas has consistently rejected a two-state solution. At the same time, Israeli settlers continue to displace Palestinians in the West Bank. Some Israeli politicians have spoken about annexing parts of the West Bank or Gaza. The Israeli government recently approved the construction of the E1 settlement project in the West Bank. This will fragment the West Bank and threaten the contiguity of Arab towns in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
We call on the Israeli government to cease settlement construction and expansion. Singapore opposes ongoing attempts to create new facts on the ground which undermine the prospects for a two-state solution. In this regard, we have decided to impose targeted sanctions on the leaders of radical right-wing settler groups or organisations that have been responsible for acts of violence against Palestinians in the West Bank. Details will be announced at a later date.
Singapore's approach to foreign policy is grounded on objective realities.
Many countries, like Singapore, see the recognition of Palestine – when it has an effective government that accepts Israel's right to exist and categorically renounces terrorism – as a meaningful step towards the ultimate goal of a negotiated two-state solution.
But a few countries have chosen to recognise a Palestinian State now, even as the prospects of a functioning state have become more remote. They do so precisely to express their grave concern at the status quo, and hope to make it harder for Israel to extinguish a two-state solution altogether.
Singapore's support for a two-state solution means that we will oppose any steps by Israel to extinguish or undermine such a solution. Singapore cannot recognise any unilateral annexation of occupied territory as this would be a flagrant breach of international law.
We will continue tracking developments closely. Events are unfolding quickly and remain unpredictable. If the situation continues to deteriorate, or if Israel takes further steps to extinguish a two-state solution, we will reconsider our position on recognising a Palestinian State.
It is hard to foresee how the situation in the Middle East will develop in the future. Nevertheless, Singapore's stance will continue to be guided by our national interests, of which the maintenance of the unity and cohesion among our people is of utmost importance. To that end, we will continue to make every effort to help Singaporeans understand the rationale for the foreign policy stance we take.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singaporeans' Response to Situation in the Middle East","subTitle":"Statement by Acting Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Acting Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs.
The Acting Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim): Mr Speaker, the Minister for Foreign Affairs has reminded this House of Singapore's long-standing position that the Palestinian people have a right to their own homeland and to self-determination. This has been our consistent stance for decades. We have also, for many years, insisted that only a negotiated two-state solution can deliver a comprehensive, just and durable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
For many of us in the Malay/Muslim community, this conflict is felt especially deeply, because the Palestinian cause is one that holds profound meaning to us. But I believe I speak on behalf of all Singaporeans, not just the Malay/Muslims, that we are horrified and saddened by the latest developments in the Middle East. What is happening in Gaza is a terrible humanitarian tragedy. The suffering, forced displacement and loss of innocent civilians we are witnessing is unbearable to many of us, regardless of our ideologies or faiths.
This House first discussed this matter on 6 November 2023, when we strongly condemned the terrorist attacks by Hamas and called for the immediate and unconditional release of all civilian hostages. What Hamas did on 7 October was an act of terrorism that involved indiscriminate killing and extreme brutality.
Now, almost two years on, the situation has evolved greatly, and Israel's actions in Gaza have been disproportionate and unacceptable.
The intensifying bombardment of Gaza is horrifying. It has destroyed Gaza's critical infrastructure, buildings and homes, forcing almost the entire civilian population of Gaza city to flee but with nowhere safe to go.
Then, there is the widespread starvation and deprivation, as the United Nations (UN) has declared, a \"man-made famine\". To compound the tragedy, humanitarian aid has been blocked for months by Israel.
The Palestinians, including women and children, have to risk their lives in an active war zone just to get food. More than 1,000 have already been killed in violent, chaotic food distributions.
The continued forced displacement of Palestinians is morally reprehensible, an offence against humanity. And 1.9 million Palestinians have had to flee their homes since the war began and since the ceasefire in March, more than 750,000. Yet, the Israeli government has chosen to compound this tragedy by moving ahead with settlement projects in the West Bank. These are illegal under international law.
By any yardstick, the actions by Israel are unjustifiable and may even be a breach of international humanitarian law. They are certainly against morality. Israel has the right to defend itself, but, as the Prime Minister said back in May, it has now gone too far.
Along with the wider international community, we must express our firm opposition to violations of international law and to unilateral measures that seek to permanently erase the possibility of a two-state solution. Earlier this month, Singapore endorsed the \"New York Declaration\" at the UN General Assembly (UNGA), once again standing firm in support of steps toward the two-state solution. But for a two-state solution to be viable, Israel must accept a Palestinian state, just as Palestinians must also accept Israel's right to exist. Mr Speaker, allow me to continue my Statement in Malay.
(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I understand that the question of whether Singapore should move to recognise Palestine has been on our minds, as what Members of Parliament (MPs) have asked. To this, I would like to offer my assurance that the recognition of a Palestinian State is indeed what Singapore hopes for and something that the Government is working towards. That has always been Singapore’s position to ensure enduring peace for the people of Palestine and Israel. This is not a question of if, but when.
We may not recognise Palestine today, but I would like to make clear to Singaporeans that we have not been – and will not be – silent onlookers to the tragedy unfolding in Gaza. As Minister Vivian mentioned, we will intensify humanitarian assistance to alleviate the suffering of Palestinians. We will also continue to extend practical support to the Palestinian Authority’s capacity-building efforts, in preparation for eventual statehood.
I thank our Malay/Muslim MPs and community leaders for their solidarity, and working hard to rally Singaporeans of all races and religions to contribute generously to our humanitarian and capacity building efforts. My thanks also goes to local non-governmental organisations such as Humanity Matters, Rahmatan Lil Alamin Foundation and Mercy Relief. Together, we are helping to create the conditions for Palestine to recover and eventually meet our criteria for recognition.
I recognise that we feel anguish, dismay and even revulsion and disgust towards Israel’s actions. However, I am heartened that, while we may have different views on what Singapore’s position should be on this matter, we understand that in order to come to a decision as to what is best for Singapore, our foreign policy also has to take into consideration international complexities and our own national interests. When I share this in my engagements and dialogues with the community, the majority of them say they understand and many hope to explore other avenues to continue showing support for the Palestinians.
(In English): Mr Speaker, I will continue my speech in English.
Mr Speaker, like many Singaporeans, I too feel strongly about the disproportionate and devastating destruction of homes and innocent lives in Gaza. But our Malay/Muslim community has shown me that flashes of indignation and outrage can be channelled into compassion and wisdom.
They have galvanised support for humanitarian assistance for the Palestinian civilians in Gaza. Many started nearly two years ago when the conflict first erupted and the community's efforts are still going strong today.
This is not an isolated effort, as many Singaporeans from other communities have stepped up too. For example, I was glad to see both Muslims and non-Muslims contribute to the Aid for Gaza, organised by the Rahmatan Lil Alamin Foundation (RLAF) in collaboration with the M3@Towns, which has raised more than $2.4 million for Gaza. Since the start of the conflict, RLAF has raised a total of $15 million for Gaza.
Recently, I met the chief executive officer of the Egyptian Red Crescent when RLAF presented a $1 million cheque as part of our donation. She commented that Singapore always delivered what we promised.
I invite Singaporeans to continue to rally together, speak with our actions and do what we can to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people. After all, if we were in their place, we would hope others would extend the same practical and tangible support.
Let us continue to be guided by wisdom and compassion, be advocates and exemplars of peace – both where the conflict is happening, and here at home with our fellow Singaporean brothers and sisters.
As the Malay saying goes, \"Bersatu teguh, bercerai roboh\", which loosely means \"united we stand, divided we fall\". Let this be our compass when discussing and responding to the situation in Gaza: that whatever views we have or hold to, we will always respond constructively and responsibly, and remain united and stand together as one Singapore, even as we extend the much-needed support to those in need miles away.
Mr Speaker: Order. We will now have clarifications on the Statements. Yes, I can see many hands of Members wanting to speak and seek clarifications. I have on record about 16 Members who have filed Parliamentary Questions (PQs) on this subject. I will give priority to these 16 Members.
But first, I would like to take this opportunity to remind Members that pursuant to Standing Order 23, Members may seek clarification on the Ministerial Statements, but no debate should be allowed thereon. And Members can seek clarifications by way of asking questions, so I seek Members' understanding to keep your clarifications clear and concise, and likewise, I ask the Ministers to also keep your answers clear and concise. Mr Vikram Nair.
Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): I thank the Minister for his clarification on Singapore's position on the recognition of Palestine. I think that one of the reasons the other countries have changed their position is they believe some of the actions that Israel will be taking now will make it much more difficult to have a two-state solution, including the current Israeli government's statement that it will not recognise a state of Palestine, as well as expanding settlements in the West Bank.
What these other governments believe is recognising a state of Palestine now will help to preserve the hope of a two-state solution. Is this something that Singapore would consider as well, if it feels the actions of the Israeli government may be undermining the two-state solution?
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Mr Speaker, actually, I think that this is a view which I think other Members in this House will also share. Actually, all of us are on the same side. When I say \"all of us\", I also include the other countries who have shifted their position. Let me say why I believe so. We all want peace. We all want an immediate release of all the hostages. We all believe that a two-state solution, as difficult and remote as it is, is the only viable way out of this quagmire.
Where we differ is that every country has its own national circumstances, its own domestic constituencies, its own outlook on its leverage or lack thereof, on the key players in the Middle East.
In the case of Singapore, as I said just now, we pursue foreign policy in a realist mode and we do pay attention to objective reality. And the first problem which I tried to outline just now is, who is in charge in Palestine? Are you dealing with Hamas, dealing with the Palestinian Authority or something in Kuwait that has yet to emerge? So, that is the first point, objective reality.
The second point is our zero tolerance for terrorism because of our own circumstances, so for instance, I cannot fathom or imagine trying to have diplomatic ties with an entity that is still holding hostages, that promises that it will repeat what it has done on 7 October 2023 and does not recognise the others' right to exist. So, that is why our position today is, it is not \"if\", but \"when\" to recognise, and we are waiting for that appropriate constellation of factors to be, in our view, an appropriate configuration.
But having said that, the Member also raised the point, and many others have as well, that the current Israeli government is actually making things worse. The settlement expansion, even their explicit remarks, so both in terms of what they say and what they do, that it is clear that the extremist elements within the Israeli body politic are trying to extinguish prospects for a two-state solution. And surely, we cannot give them cover for that. And that is why today, what you have seen is these two announcements right, not \"if\", but \"when\", and we have spelled out the factors of when we will recognise.
The other is targeted sanctions to reflect our opposition to these violent extremist attempts to extinguish the two-state solution, and I have also added that the caveat situation is evolving very rapidly, it is unpredictable. And we will have to monitor if the situation continues to deteriorate or if Israel takes further steps to make it well-nigh impossible, we will have to recompute.
So, the point is to focus on the similarities that we are all on the same side, but each country will have a different trigger, different threshold and a different appreciation of the situation.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Workers' Party's position on the formal recognition of the state of Palestine is clear in our manifesto, the same manifesto we took to voters before the elections. That has not changed. I note the earlier remarks by the Minister, going through what had happened in the past. Thirty-seven years ago, Singapore formally welcomed the proclamation of the state of Palestine and an important trigger for that was the explicit recognition by Yasser Arafat that the PLO would reject terrorism.
Similarly, with regard to the New York declaration, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) also welcomed the Palestinian Authority's continued rejection of violence and terrorism.
With that as a preamble, does the Minister not agree that the prospects of having an effective Palestinian government in place, which is a precondition to Singapore recognising the state of Palestine is not a realistic precondition anymore, given the statement of the Israeli Prime Minister that there will not be a Palestinian state, and one can assume that he will work overtime to make sure that does not happen, and that is separate to the signing of an expanded settlement agreement that would bisect the occupied West Bank.
Secondly, does the Minister not agree that with many of our major trade and defence partners like France, Australia, the United Kingdom (UK) and our Association of Southeast Asian Nation (ASEAN) neighbours, and the overwhelming majority of the international community of nations recognising the state of Palestine, does our foreign policy position not risk being seen as anachronistic? And in this regard, what specific principles are we upholding by not recognising the state of Palestine forthwith? Should recognising the state of Palestine not be in our national interest and more weight placed instead on Israel's flagrant violations of international law and commitment to continue doing the same? Would not doing so send a clear message that as a matter of clear principle, Singapore's foreign policy stands for the foundational role of the UN in maintaining peace and security, and does not stand for breaches of international law, particularly in view of the Government's public comments on UNSC Resolution 242, and separately, UNSC Resolution 2334?
The third question pertains to the Government and the Singapore Armed Forces' (SAF's) extensive military-to-military links with the state of Israel, the most recent example of this being the joint development of a surface-to-surface missile Blue Spear by Singapore Technologies and the Israel Aerospace Industries. Has the Government, and this was a part of my PQ, reviewed whether close ties with Israel, particularly in the military domain going forward, continue to be in our national interest? And has the Government assessed whether Singapore is relatively over-invested in the Israel-Singapore relationship, and is it not time to diversify in our national interest?
The Minister spoke of sanctions and announced that more details would be announced later. Do the sanctions that the Minister is foreseeing have any impact on current military-to-military relationship with Israel?
My last question is to the Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs. What is the current threat assessment to Singapore and Singapore interests arising from a perception of close Singapore-Israel ties from radicalised individuals abroad and self-radicalised individuals locally? Does the Government see a direct link to threats to Singapore, given close Singapore-Israel ties in the immediate to medium term?
Thank you for your indulgence, Mr Speaker.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: First question: is our requirement that there be an effective political entity or government on the other side a realistic one? The Leader of the Opposition adds on to say, well, Israel will do its best to make sure that there is no realistic government. Therefore, by insisting on having an effective government, as an objective reality, are we setting the bar too high?
Mr Speaker, that is why I took some pains in my Statement to go through the history of the Palestinian Authority and the very difficult journey to get both sides to accept a two-state solution. I reminded you the two-state solution did not begin yesterday. In fact, it goes back to the UN in 1947.
Israel took what was on offer, ran and declared independence. The entire constellation of Arab countries said no. Only one state. You had war. It was only in 1988 that the Palestinian Liberation Organization, in its proclamation of a Palestinian state, even then, only implicitly recognised Israel's right to exist and renounced terrorism.
We welcomed the proclamation because these two elements, recognising the other exists and renouncing terrorism, are important for our national interest. It is not just a foreign policy. It is in our national interest.
I also then went on to describe the events – Oslo, the elections in Gaza, the two decades without election, the violence between Hamas and Fatah – again, to point out the lack of an objective reality is not all on and due to one other party. They have got to get their own house in order.
Will we allow, however, Israel, therefore, to have a veto? The answer is we cannot allow them to have a veto because our consistent long-held belief is a two-state solution. If either one or both says no, we cannot go along with them on that ride.
That is why I have also caveated that our position is not if, but when. We have also highlighted that if the situation continues to deteriorate or if Israel takes further action to extinguish any prospect for a two-state solution, then we have to reconsider our position.
The Member asked whether we are being anachronistic because several, basically, European powers in the last few days have changed their position.
In my answer to Mr Vikram Nair, I tried to remind everyone that in the big picture, we all want the same thing. But different countries will have different thresholds, different triggers to decide when they take certain diplomatic moves.
We, for now, have shifted since May last year. We said we are prepared, in principle, to recognise the Palestinian state. Today, I am telling you we will recognise the Palestinian state when there is effective government renouncing terrorism, recognising the state of Israel.
It is a shift, but it is also a shift, which I want to emphasise, recognises that you have to clear a certain bar – that amongst the Palestinians themselves, they have sorted out themselves politically to be an effective, unified voice that can conduct foreign policy, that can enter into agreements and make agreements stick – and also because of our complete aversion to terrorism.
That is why we have taken the current position. I do not think we are being anachronistic. I think we are being realistic, given the circumstances in which Singapore has to operate in our part of the world.
On defence, I have already said that yes, it is not a secret that they played a role in our early years, for which we are grateful, and they continue to have an invaluable role. But again, that does not mean that we are locked into giving them a free pass.
When you have an equal and mutually respectful partnership, when you differ, you must be prepared to say so, to say so openly, candidly and constructively. And we have that kind of relationship.
I will not get into operational details of defence. You know that it is the Government's established long-standing policy not to publicly diverse divulge details on defence cooperation for national security reasons. So, I am not going to go into that area. But I give you this assurance that we are not being held hostage. Singapore will not allow itself to be held hostage. Beyond that, I am not going to get into operational details. As a National Serviceman yourself, I am sure you understand that.
Mr Speaker: Dr Charlene Chen. Sorry, Acting Minister first.
Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the supplementary question or clarification.
If you look at the issue of radicalisation, there are many factors that account for it. There are also many incidents around the world that are happening – not only the incidents, but also what our young people and Singaporeans come across on social media and what they read.
I can say that we are very fortunate to have not only enforcement agencies that really look at how we can minimise or eradicate, if possible, the issue of radicalisation, but we have community partners that work together with us to go upstream and look at how we can manage this and help our people in promoting a harmonious and peaceful living here.
So, I tried to think what the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting when he asked that question. Is he suggesting that our policy stance has resulted in radicalisation? I just want to get his answer to that.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am not suggesting that. My query to the Senior Minister of State pertains to the threat landscape and the environment. And the question is not something new. In 2013, I shared with this House that there is a concern if Singapore's position may have an impact on the way people think about this particular issue, if we are seen as too close to the Israeli position.
Is there any evidence that MHA has that the close relationship contributes to a heightened environment of radicalisation faced by Singapore? I think that is the point. Because we have had episodes in the past, and the MHA had announced it, where certain individuals are held under the Internal Security Act and they cite this issue as one reason for their thoughts and actions insofar as planning violence in Singapore.
Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: I thank the Member for clarifying. What is key is that the security agencies will look at all the different areas. Certain things may have an effect or perceived effect. Nevertheless, in Singapore, I am sure you are familiar about how we build our nation and what we do, we understand there are various things that affect how a person thinks; how that will evoke emotion.
What we do is we work with community partners and agencies, and if you read what the religious rehabilitation groups are doing, they not only look at the Malay/Muslim issues, but they look at how they can play a part in building a peaceful, harmonious and progressive Singapore.
So, at the end of the day, looking at Singapore's interests, linking back to what Minister Vivian has said earlier, I want to reiterate that the issue of radicalisation comes from various factors. Also, if you look at the profile of the different individuals who have been so called radicalised and are at the early stage or even at the advance stage of radicalisation, there are various factors that account for them.
To pin down to just our policy stance will not be accurate. I am happy that the Leader of the Opposition has clarified his position.
Mr Speaker: Dr Charlene Chen.
Dr Charlene Chen (Tampines): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions. Number one, Singaporeans, including our residents in Tampines, are saddened and anguished by the war in Gaza. They wonder whether the Government can take further actions, including tougher sanctions, to demonstrate Singapore's objection towards the atrocities. How can the Government better communicate the Government's approach and that this approach is the best one for Singapore? And when do we impose these sanctions?
My second supplementary question. Like Gaza, Singapore is a small entity. Small countries like ours rely on international law for survival. How does the Ministry see Singapore's role in speaking up for other small entities or states when injustice occurs and what does the erosion of international rules in this conflict signal for the security of small states like ours?
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: On the question of sanctions. This is in fact the first time we are imposing sanctions. I would ask for time to let us sort out the details of the announcements. The larger point behind that, is that, this is an expression of disapproval. This is an expression that is in keeping with our assessment of the situation, that it is wrong and it is inimical to the long-term interests of both Palestinians and Israel. It is a reflection that we continue to believe a two-state solution is the only viable way forward.
On international law, I think that is very clear. Because of our own circumstances, we do have to abide by and we do need to comply with international law. But it is also equally important for us all to understand the difference between international law and domestic law is that you can have a court, in this case, the International Court of Justice; in our case, we have our own domestic courts. But domestically, the enforcement mechanisms are there.
Internationally, enforcement actually depends on consent from all the states involved. I say this so that, first, we get a realistic appreciation of the limits of international law, but we also understand why, as a small nation, we cannot operate on the basis of \"might is right\" and give in to that every time someone invokes that, because that is inimical to our own interest.
But let me just bring the deliberations today back and also partially refer to what the Leader of the Opposition was asking my colleague. Singapore has to start with a realistic appreciation of who we are, which means, in particular, multiracial, multi-religious, in Southeast Asia, in a part of the world which used to be tumultuous and could be if things unravel further. And who we are also means we are exposed to external events and external influence, and that is a reality. So, we start with a realistic appreciation of our circumstances.
Next, we need to guard jealously our national interest and, I have told you, in this case, our national interest is unity, security and support for international law for what it is worth, despite all the limitations that it has. It is easy to state that, but on every issue, we have to triangulate between these three poles – what is in our national interest for security, what is in our national interest for unity and what is in our national interest to maintain international law.
And sometimes, there is tension between these three poles and the way we have to address it and the way the PAP government has addressed it, is that when these tensions are evident, we talk about it constructively, openly, delicately. We do not play it up. We do not use it to score domestic political points or to split our society in order to get short-term political points. So, the larger point I am trying to tell all of us is that the world is messy and the world has become far, far more dangerous and it will be increasingly more and more difficult for Singapore to just jealously guard its national interests while keeping everybody together.
And we make our decisions in our own national interest; it means we will not always follow the crowd. Many times, we will be in a minority and we will not be afraid to be in a minority, so long as we understand that we are taking a stand based on principle, we are taking a stand to defend our own people's welfare and security, and that when we deal with thorny issues, we will discuss it openly, respectfully and constructively.
The Member's question, is there a risk that all these events outside Singapore can radicalise our own people? Of course, they can and they have and we have seen evidence of them.
Is this the only source of division, radicalisation and extremism in the world? No, it is not. There are other parts of the world which can also sow division, discord and extremism in the world.
Is this something which we can resolve once and for all with a discussion, a Ministerial Statement or a debate in Parliament? No, we cannot. This is always going to be a work-in-progress.
And on that note, I just want to make this appeal, also to the Leader of the Opposition – this is one of those times we need to make common cause. The Member and I may differ on the timing of recognition but in the same way, as I describe our position vis-a-vis the other countries, I think we all ultimately want the same thing: we want peace. We do not want terrorism. We want mutual respect between people with complicated histories and identity. And we want to be able to do good where we can, by working with as many parties, as many entities as possible. So, this should be an occasion for unity amidst the difficulty and we should be very mindful in our conversations, not just in this House, but outside this House, that we secure unity, security and peace under international law. It is possible and I still want to hold on to that prospect.
When we go to the Middle East, and Members, Mr Gerald Giam was with me, I could tell the Israelis and even the Arabs, \"if you want a one-state solution, your delegation, your government must look like mine.\" Everyone nods and yet, also in their heart of hearts, they know, it is not possible. Well, if it is not possible, that is why you need a two-state solution.
But on the other hand, we should also be grateful for what we have in Singapore, but also understand it is always at risk, always fragile and we need to jealously protect it and guard it.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): I thank the Minister and the Senior Minister of State for the Ministerial Statement. I have two clarifications. Singapore's aid to Gaza demonstrates our compassion for Palestinians. It also signals our values as a principle of small states.
My first clarification. How effective has Singapore's humanitarian assistance been in meeting the needs of Gaza?
My second clarification is this: the International Association of Genocide Scholars has declared that Israel's actions in Gaza are consistent with the legal definition of genocide. Will the Government call Israel out for committing genocide?
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: I have outlined our 10 tranches of humanitarian assistance, whether by airdrop or by supplies delivered over land. I cannot attest to what happens once it gets into Gaza, but I take the following attitude.
One, gratitude to Singaporeans for generosity, for expressing compassion in a very real way and the fact that the funds raised were raised in a multi-religious, multiracial effort. It is a very Singaporean expression of compassion, that is first. Two, I am grateful it was the SAF that played a major role in the delivery, and I thank the SAF men and women. We should not take safety for granted. These were operations, they were not exercises. So, gratitude to SAF. Three, I am grateful that over the six decades, we have built close, respectful and constructive ties across all the countries in the Middle East, so we can base our air force in Jordan, we can overfly Israel, we can airdrop in Palestine, we can work with our Egyptian partners, whether to hand over money or humanitarian assistance and, right now, as I outlined just now, work with Egyptian hospitals to look after people who need medical care and I mentioned even community policing. Well, this sort of project, which we are doing together with Japan to train police officers working under the Palestinian Authority to prepare for future statehood. So, there is a lot to be grateful for and to also reflect on the blessings that we have in Singapore. It is a very Singaporean expression of compassion in action.
On genocide, as I said earlier in the Statement, I would leave this to be determined by the International Court of Justice. Proceedings are in place, are underway. I do not think they have fully heard the arguments on merit and they certainly have not arrived at the verdict, but we will have to wait for that and to act accordingly.
I can share with the Member what I told the Israeli President – and the delegation Members who were with me can attest to that – because we are friends, we also have a duty to be candid. And as I told him, \"It is true that the world has double standards and the world expects more of Israel, because Israel was born from the ashes of the Holocaust. And if Israel loses its international moral standing authority, that does untold strategic damage to your long-term prospects.\"
They did not push back on that point because they know it is a sincerely held view from someone who hopes for peace for them and their neighbouring people who, even in the darkest of times, have to hope. They need hope that there is a better way. But again, be grateful for what we have in Singapore.
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat, you filed three PQs. So, go ahead.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, I would not be asking three supplementary questions. But I have one clarification to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It is in relation to the sanctions. The Minister shared that shift in position on the targeted sanctions on the settler groups and individuals. In fact, I am thankful to the Minister for sharing that slight change, because if you look at the European Union (EU), the US, Canada, Australia, Japan and the United Kingdom (UK), they also did similar targeted sanctions back in 2024. So, Singapore shifting in 2025 is, in some ways, not taken very lightly and probably a very principled move, especially when Singapore is a financial hub and seen as a financial centre.
But my clarification is, Minister, in a broader perspective, the threshold of taking broader sanctions on Israel, the entity or the country itself, can the Minister share how Singapore would assess the actions of other countries, going forward, that have imposed financial or economic sanctions on Israel and whether there is scope for us to consider similar enhancement measures in a calibrated way? Only in a situation where the Gaza situation does not abate, how would we take that into consideration and how would be our principled assessment be? So, my question is, in fact, about the thresholds: what would be our principled guidelines to shift to a different threshold on broader sanctions?
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Mr Speaker, I will be frank. Sanctions are not something we enter into lightly. But let us also not assume or presume that sanctions will make a major difference to facts on the ground. And I say this not just with respect to what we are proposing for the settler groups, but again, the world's history on sanctions and their effectivity, I would say, it is often more a statement of principle and expression of disapproval. I would not bank that, historically, any set of sanctions have been decisive in its own way. So, like many things in foreign policy, it is a multivariate equation and, sometimes, you need all the different pieces, the configuration, to come together in time and space for there to be a step change.
So, I am not saying that we entered into sanctions lightly. It is, for us, a major statement. But I do not want to overstate its impact.
Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, I thank the three Ministers for their excellent responses. My clarification is borne out of my understanding of the three Ministerial Statements that, in fact, we do have two levels of agency. The first is diplomacy and accessibility that our MFA has in the region. The Minister gained access to the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Palestinian territories and Israel, all in the same visit, in 2024, and were able to listen to many different levels of positions and each level not being homogenous.
Also, the second level of agency, which is our SAF, being able to deploy our Charlie-130s airdrops, working with the Jordanian air force. So, I feel humbly proud, if that is the correct word to use, that we have two excellent institutions with major agency.
I would like to ask what, we, as a small country in this part of the world, is able to do with these two levels of agency to work together with like-minded countries, to bring about dialogue and discussion between two sides in the Middle East conflict, to achieve as best as we can, maximum hope for peace and stability whilst obviously also having a close eye on what our national interests are? How can we use the agencies of diplomacy, in the form of MFA and humanitarian assistance in the form of SAF, to bring about one step closer to peace in the region?
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: I am always pleasantly surprised or gratified by the access that we have. My conclusion, after years in this is, people give us access because, one, they have heard of Singapore. They have heard of Mr Lee Kuan Yew. They hear our Prime Ministers, both what they say domestically and internationally, it travels; and it is credible.
They know we are a successful country. They know we are a united country and united across race, language and religion. They know we are serious-minded people. They now, as Assoc Prof Faishal Ibrahim said just now, when we say something, we actually take it seriously, we commit to it and we deliver. They do not expect us to completely echo their positions.
In fact, they know that we are serious-minded, we are careful, we are deliberate and we do not just follow the crowd. And that is precisely why I think we get access and why we get at least applied hearing. And where we can make common calls and where we can sign agreements and do things together, we do. And Singapore and Singaporeans are welcome throughout, even troubled spots, because of this reputation.
But at the same time, we also should retain a sense of realism and humility. We cannot solve very difficult, thorny issues all over the world, to the extent that we can extend our friendship, our support, our humanitarian assistance, if they want to use us sometimes officially or unofficially, as a venue, we are happy to pour tea. But we should never, never overestimate our abilities to deal with very difficult issues globally.
So, I am quite content to play a constructive and useful role, but not to be made use of. At the same time, bearing in mind that the moment Singapore fails or is disunited, or that the leaders of Singapore no longer credible, it is game over. We will be irrelevant. In other words, it is not so much exactly the details of your decision but the basis by which we organise ourselves, arrive at decisions, make commitments, stick to commitments, deliver the goods and behave in a consistent, constructive law-abiding way.
I do not want to use the word \"moral\" where states are concerned, but Members know what I mean. There is a certain code by which people know Singapore will always behave. And for that, they will accept that we will be different from time to time. But it is respect and we can do some good and that is the way I conduct our relations with other countries.
Mr Speaker: Ms Nadia Samdin.
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): (In Malay): Thank you, Speaker. Let me begin by saying that I agree with the Minister that we should focus on and prioritise Singapore and Singaporeans in all our decisions and actions. On that note, I know that many people disagree with Israel's actions in Gaza and the West Bank. This is not just a matter of national security, but also a matter of national conscience.
(In English): In terms of our interests, Sir, it is not just a matter of national security for us in Singapore but arguably also a question of national conscience as many have expressed very strong views.
I have two supplementary questions. How do we expect the proposed sanctions to move the needle on peace and desired outcomes, including a two-state solution, given the very extreme views on both sides, as mentioned by the Minister, including members of the Israeli government who have rejected the two-state solution, not just political activists or settlers in the West Bank, by vowing to destroy Gaza?
The Minister has, in his answer to the hon Member Mr Saktiandi Supaat earlier mentioned that sanctions have not always proven to be effective. I seek the Minister's views and how we can re-envision these sanctions could impact Israel, Palestine as well as other actors, for example, the US.
Second supplementary question. The Minister also mentioned how we have consistently maintained open lines of communication with both ends and that this is important, not just in times of peace, but also during times of crisis. So, will the Government thus consider using these open lines of communication to support perhaps ceasefire negotiations, in some shape or form, more directly beyond the humanitarian assistance?
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: I am grateful for the Member's questions and I appreciate where she is coming from. But again, I want to urge a sense of realism. Will sanctions from a small city-state, like Singapore, move the needle on its own? No, it would not. But is it an expression of our views? It is. Will the Israelis notice it? Oh, I am sure they will notice it, precisely because they know that we are careful, deliberative, constructive partners who want the best for their long-term survival and for their neighbours, the Palestinians. So, we should be realistic about what we say and do and the effect of what we say and do.
On open lines of communication, on ceasefire negotiations, I want to give full credit to our friends in Qatar and Egypt. And in the case of Qatar, even facing danger for being a venue for such negotiations and we should give them our fullest support, appreciation and respect for doing that.
Can Singapore play such a role? I do not see that in the imminent future. Again, we need to understand the nature of conflicts in diplomacy, that the most effective peacemakers have to be both trusted by both sides and have leverage because the world is not short of conference venues where people can meet and have a nice cup of tea. But it needs to be a place where both sides feel that they are safe and that you are not playing games. But very often, to force two sides which are very far away, apart from each other and sometimes, to be honest, even having sub-segments of the two sides who are working across purposes, we need leverage.
As far as I am concerned, what the last two years have illustrated is that, actually, the single superpower with real leverage in the Middle East, is the US. Depending on those decisions made in Washington, which will also reflect its own complex domestic political situation, that is where real leverage may or may not be applied to bring, at least an interim ceasefire, hopefully, a permanent ceasefire and the release of all hostages.
So, again my plea is, be realistic about what we can do, what we should do. And I accept the Member's point that our words and our actions should reflect what we stand for and we cannot close our eyes and close our ears and keep silent when things are clearly wrong and unconscionable. I hope I have made the point that we have not been such a party. So, we are not fair weather friends. We are all weather friends, but we are also friends who tell you hard truth. To the extent that we can help, we will help, but we will not push and overstay our welcome or overestimate our ability to solve problems which have defied solutions for decades, centuries or, sometimes, millennia.
Mr Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan, you also had a PQ on this for tomorrow's Sitting.
Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong Central): Speaker, I have a clarification for the Minister, similar to hon colleagues Mr Saktiandi and Ms Nadia. It is a question about sanctions, but I would like to go specifically to the context, also of the question I have filed, which is regarding Israel's attack in Qatar.
The Ministerial Statements did not quite answer my question, but I know MFA put out a statement, condemning the attack and stating that it is an egregious violation of Qatar's sovereignty. So, given that Singapore has been a staunch supporter of this core principle of respect of the sovereignty of all nations, big and small, not just any piece of international law but of this very core principle of international law, because it is fundamental to our survival as a small state and therefore, Singapore has also responded robustly to other instances of the violation of sovereignty of other nations by other nations in the past, going beyond verbal condemnation, imposing sanctions. How does Singapore's response in this instance to Israel's attack in Qatar compute, vis-a-vis our responses to past instances of violation of sovereignty? Can we not consider imposing sanctions, as an expression of our disapproval, to a violation of this very core principle of international law?
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Mr Speaker, we condemned the attack in Doha by Israel and we said so publicly and there is no doubt, in anybody's mind, where we stand on that. And we stand on that again, because again, the same question went through my mind, what if it happened here, what would we do and what would we say?
Having said that, I think the Member is asking whether we should go further. I am not inclined to do further because, otherwise, we will end up having to chase every and every infraction which countries are engaged in against each other and us having to respond. So, my preference is to reserve it for the most egregious, the most important issues where we need to make a point.
Again, for Qatar, the US' largest airbase in the Middle East is in Qatar. The real player who could and should have ensured security – I do not want to cause more problems, but we can think about that. Alright? Again, my larger point I am making to all of us, please have a realistic view of what Singapore can and cannot do. My own view is with the Qataris, we were in contact immediately. They know where we stand, they appreciated our stand. But there are some much bigger players who need to resolve the very awkward set of questions that the attack posed.
But also, let us bear in mind that this is a dangerous and unpredictable world. Can we again, I want to persuade everyone, to come back to the zero-tolerance for breach of international law and zero-tolerance for terrorism and zero-tolerance, therefore, for even accepting any justifications or pretext for terrorism and harbouring them.
Again, at some risk, I will also tell you that there are offices of terrorist organisations in our region. It is an objective reality and we need to be mindful and we need to be careful. We do not want to say too much, but there are some things which we need to be aware of and we need to take appropriate precautions from. Maybe you should ask Minister Shanmugam about that.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): I thank the Minister for his answers. The Minister stated that Singapore will reconsider its position on recognising the Palestinian state if the situation continues to deteriorate or if Israel takes any further steps to extinguish the two-state solution.
Given the continued expansion of Israeli settlements, the Israeli government's stated policy that \"there will be no Palestinian state\" and even their alleged targeting of peace negotiators in Qatar, does the Minister not consider these to be severe enough to trigger a re-evaluation of Singapore's position now?
Second, the Minister said that Singapore will recognise Palestine when it has an effective government that accepts Israel's right to exist and categorically renounces terrorism.
But the Palestinian Authority has already made a commitment to renounce terrorism and carry out reforms. What additional steps does the Palestinian Authority need to take in order for Singapore to recognise the state of Palestine?
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Mr Speaker, I just made a Ministerial Statement, announced sanctions, announced conditional recognition. The Member is already jumping and asking me to re-evaluate our position.
I would say, let us watch very, very carefully how things unfold in the days, weeks and months. I have set out for all of us our principal considerations and the variables which we are watching. We will decide accordingly. I do not want to jump the gun and enter into excessively hypothetical discussions.
The second question was what else is necessary for the Palestinian Authority.
I wish they were in charge in Gaza, but you and I know they are not, or certainly not yet. But we continue to work with them, we continue to build up their capacity, we continue to prepare them for eventual statehood and for the time when they can be in charge.
I should also add, if you read carefully all the statements of those who have apparently changed position in the last few days, I very seriously doubt any of them can actually begin the actual process or normalisation as long as hostages are still held in the tunnels of Gaza.
I think the best way to understand this is everyone wants the same endpoint, but there can be arguments about when and how the route you take to reach the ultimate destination.
Mr Speaker: We have had almost an hour of clarifications. I have called on every Member who had filed questions on this except for two – Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Dennis Tan. And now, I will call on Mr Sharael Taha.
Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Changi): Thank you, Speaker. I would like to thank Minister Vivian for his clarification that we will recognise the Palestinian state and it is a question of when, not if.
I appreciate the position has evolved, given the deteriorating circumstances. However, many may find it hard to understand the preconditions and could approach it from a very binary stand – either we support or we do not support – which can lead to a lot of misunderstanding, especially when other countries have had their individual separate reasons for doing so.
My question to the Minister is, how can we better communicate this position of ours so that there is no misunderstanding within the country and with other countries? That is my first supplementary question.
My second supplementary question is to the Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs and I will ask the supplementary question in Malay.
(In Malay): It is extremely difficult and heartbreaking to witness the suffering and loss of innocent lives in Gaza and we have provided substantial assistance to them. How can Singapore and Singaporeans continue to help those in Palestine? And how can we also put an end to this suffering, call for a ceasefire, provide immediate humanitarian aid to victims in Gaza and work with other countries to find a lasting and peaceful solution for the Palestinian people?
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: This has been longer than my Committee of Supply and the question is how to communicate better. I do not know whether it means I obviously have not been able to communicate effectively or maybe this is a chance for me to reiterate the key points. Maybe, let me take that opportunity.
We believe both the Israeli state and the Palestinian state deserve to exist. That is why we have always supported the Palestinians' right to self-determination and their own homeland.
We also acknowledge the historical complexities. That is why \"from the river to the sea\" is not possible for either party. They have to find the wisdom and the leadership to create a two-state solution where they can live in peace and security.
Number three, whilst we recognise Israel's right to exist and we recognise Israel's need to be strong, there is also wisdom in knowing how to use your strengths. You can win a tactical victory and lose the strategic war. What it is worth, this is what we are telling the Israelis and have been doing so for some time.
Next point, we know that anything Singapore says or does is not going to resolve the situation on the ground in the Middle East. But for what it is worth, we will express a stand which is consistent with our own identity and values as a multiracial, multi-religious state. We will do our best to extend humanitarian assistance as a real expression of the collective compassion of Singaporeans.
That is why today, we have reached this point of conditional recognition for Palestine. We hope and wait and will support and take efforts to hopefully make that an objective reality. In the meantime, we have targeted sanctions to express our disapproval for further moves to make a two-state solution impossible.
That is my \"too long, did not read\" (TLDR) summary of the last two hours.
Mr Speaker: Acting Minister Faishal.
Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: (In Malay): I thank Mr Sharael for the question. If we look back to the moment when this situation unfolded, we can see that the Malay/Muslim community wanted to contribute to efforts to ease the suffering that was taking place over there.
We started with our members and organisations who stepped forward to contribute donations. We also held special prayers, as you may recall, and even now, whenever we perform the prayers, we include the Qunut Nazilah, or Supplication During Calamity.
This demonstrates the enduring resilience that I observe in our Malay/Muslim community. We also joined other communities to take action in providing support, humanitarian aid, as well as establishing solid and safe platforms that provided a space for our needs during these difficult times.
Minister Vivian has also shared, or briefly outlined, what we have done and will continue to do. We have provided substantial support and assistance. We will also provide support to hospitals, and medical supplies, as well as enhance their capabilities over there, not only for the Palestinian Authority, but also for those who wish to study through scholarships for new students. All of this is provided by the Government as well as Singaporeans.
We also understand that the situation there remains volatile, so we will continue to monitor it and if there are opportunities, we will increase and multiply our efforts and further enhance assistance to them.
This is the commitment that Minister Vivian and the Singapore Government have made. I hope that together we can seize this opportunity to build our united nation and while we may be affected by incidents abroad, we must prioritise our nation's interests across all aspects of policy and our collective lives.
I am heartened when I observed, through my involvement in community work and serving in several ministries, how the Government balances Singapore's interests while prioritising the needs of our multi-racial society, including the Malay/Muslim community. What I witness is truly remarkable, as I have not seen other governments having similar principles and policies.
I hope that together we can build Singapore, not just as a multi-racial society, but as an extraordinary and unique country that can achieve not only our national goals, but provide opportunities for all races, religions and every individual so they can progress and become the best version of themselves.
Mr Speaker: For the last clarification, Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): I would like the Minister for Foreign Affairs to explain the rationale behind Singapore voting for the recent UN resolution on 19 September calling for the participation of Palestine at the opening of the 80th session of the UN General Assembly while still withholding the recognition of a Palestinian state.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: We voted in favour of the resolution because if you read the resolution in its entirety, you will see that it is a comprehensive one, which I would say, makes many countries who voted for it, there will be parts which they agree, there will be parts which they disagree.
But it is one of the few, or one of the fewer UN resolutions that actually calls out 7 October as a terrorist act committed by Hamas that calls for the immediate release of hostages, also calls for immediate ceasefire and also calls ultimately for a state of Palestine to take its place in the UN.
We voted for it because we look at it in totality. This is something which we support, or which we want to happen, which we hope will happen, even if, as I said, the objective reality has not yet occurred. Hostages are still being held in tunnels, Hamas is still in power in Gaza. Nevertheless, we voted in favour of it because we think this solution encapsulates the full width of measures needed in the long run for hopefully peace to come to this region, so hence our vote.
I can assure you our votes in the UN are never performative or cynical. We do so on the basis of principle and of a careful assessment of our national interest.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Ministerial Statements. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Order of the Day.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"President's Speech","subTitle":"Debate on Address of Thanks – first allotted day","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.
Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Changi): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to: 'We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the First Session of this Parliament'.\"
Mr Speaker, the President’s Address reminded us of the profound transitions of our time; a world in flux, both globally and at home. We see the sharpening rivalry between the United States (US) and China, and the erosion of the rules-based order that has enabled Singapore to survive so far. Increasingly, we face a divided world where aggression, coercion and the weaponisation of trade have become commonplace, while rapid technological change reshapes our societies at an unprecedented pace.
Against this backdrop, the President set out four key challenges. Firstly, securing our country against both conventional and unconventional threats; secondly, transforming our economy while tackling existential challenges such as climate change; thirdly, assuring Singaporeans at every stage of life on jobs, housing, healthcare and cost-of-living; and forth, strengthening our social compact so that work is valued fairly, the vulnerable are cared for with compassion, and every Singaporean is empowered to pursue their dreams.
More importantly, he reminded us that our future depends on unity; nurturing a “we first” society built on trust, resilience and shared purpose.
Mr Speaker, the President characterised these as not just “transient headwinds” but rather, “fundamental shifts in the tide.” And in times of change, two emotions shape our human response, one of anxiety and another one of hope. It is through this lens that I shape my speech today.
Mr Speaker, the confluence of supply chain realignments, geopolitical conflicts, tariffs, rapid advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and the fracturing of societies due to distrust has fuelled deep anxiety. The world ahead feels unpredictable and uncertain.
As a Member of Parliament (MP) and through my professional experience, I have had conversations with residents of Pasir Ris-Changi, Singaporeans from all walks of life, foreign professionals, investors, businesses from multinational corporations (MNCs) and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to local stallholders in our pasar. In our communities, including the Malay/Muslim community, two anxieties stand out most clearly. Firstly, on jobs and employability: fresh graduates seeking their first role, mid-career workers striving to stay relevant, and seniors struggling to find opportunities. And secondly, on the cost of living and the cost of doing business: from rent to wages to dealing with tariffs. Let me begin with jobs and employability with a focus on fresh graduates.
In conversations with fresh graduates, a common refrain is their struggle to land that first job. Many tell me they have sent over a hundred curriculum vitae (CVs) without a single reply. They have tried LinkedIn, career coaches, networking events, peer-support groups; yet remain unemployed. Parents too share their anxiety, contrasting today’s reality with the past when jobs came more quickly. Graduates lament that companies demand experience, but without the opportunity, how can they ever gain it? Silence from employers with CVs submitted leaves them questioning whether vacancies are real, whether they are being overlooked, or whether there are deeper structural issues in the job market.
The data reflects this struggle. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) reported on 17 September that while employment for fresh graduates soon after university rose by 4% in 2024, the rate remains at just 51.9% – leaving about 8,600 still unemployed. A joint survey by the National University of Singapore (NUS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore Management University (SMU), Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS), and Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD) showed only 87.1% of graduates secured work within six months in 2024, down from 89.6% in 2023, continuing a declining trend since 2022. For private institution graduates, outcomes were worse, with fewer securing jobs and fewer securing full-time roles. Youth unemployment under 30 also inched up from 5.4% to 5.7%.
However, this is not a simple Private Education Institution versus Autonomous University comparison. The real issue is whether courses equip graduates with the skills the industry demands. The trend is clear: our young graduates face a tougher, more uncertain path. And we must work together to make things better for them.
On the other hand, employers see the problem differently but no less seriously. MNCs, SMEs and local enterprises all share the same challenge: they cannot find enough Singaporeans to fill the roles. Hiring managers struggle to find the right candidates.
The data supports this. Unemployment remains below 2%, yet there are still more vacancies than jobseekers – 1.64 jobs per unemployed person. The 2025 ManpowerGroup Employment Outlook Survey found that 43% of employers still intend to hire. On MyCareersFuture, more than 23,000 of the 68,000 listed jobs are for fresh graduates, executives, and senior executives, in roles such as engineers, marketers, data specialists and operational planners.
So we face a paradox: graduates say they cannot find jobs, while businesses say they cannot find workers. The mismatch lies not in the numbers but in alignment – between skills taught and skills and experience demanded and between expectation and realities. The National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) has framed this paradox through four gaps: the Expectation Gap, the Skills Gap, the Opportunity Gap, and the Experience Gap. I would add a fifth: the Job Redesign Gap.
On the Expectation Gap: technology has reshaped hiring. With one-click portals and AI-tailored CVs, jobseekers can now apply for dozens, if not hundreds, of roles daily. Employers are swamped with CVs, making it unrealistic to expect replies to every applicant. Jobseekers and their parents must adjust to this new reality.
On the Job Redesign Gap: with AI, businesses are struggling to define entry-level roles fast enough. Tasks once designed by fresh graduates such as research, doing slides, doing minutes, are now automated. Companies need graduates who can apply AI but within a business context. This requires rethinking roles so fresh graduates remain cost-effective contributors while still gaining the experience.
So, how do we bridge these gaps then? And I would like to offer four suggestions. Firstly, scale up the GRaduate Industry Traineeship (GRiT) Programme. Let me declare my interest as a Workforce Singapore (WSG) board member. GRiT supports graduates from universities, polytechnics, the Institutes of Technical Education (ITEs) and private institutions, giving them industry-relevant skills. It provides an allowance- up to 70% funded by WSG, and 30% by host organisations. By October 2025, there will be 800 structured traineeships. The challenge is to scale it up. We need more businesses to come forward to invest in our graduates to mentor them, to give them the business context and prepare them for future roles.
Second, expand structured apprenticeships. Singapore has made progress with the AI Apprenticeship Programme and the Oracle Programme, but we must extend this model to other sectors, such as manufacturing, healthcare, logistics, operations and the green economy. Unlike short, unstructured internships which has limited success, apprenticeships must provide both technical training, the business context and workplace readiness.
Thirdly to strengthen collaboration. Within government, industries and education institutions must align their efforts and set standards. Germany’s dual education system is instructive: combining classroom learning with real workplace training which produces industry-ready talent. By adapting some of the useful elements of such approaches, Singapore can fill critical skills gaps and uplift vocational careers.
Fourthly, about encouraging community initiatives. In Pasir Ris-Changi, one of our volunteers, Arshad, together with Al-Mawaddah Mosque and M³ at Pasir Ris-Changi, organised an overnight biking event ending with professionals sharing their work experience with youths. Such grassroots efforts from peer-support groups can link professional networks to the jobseekers.
Mr Speaker, the anxieties of jobseekers are real and the frustrations of businesses are real. But so too, are the opportunities. If Government, businesses, educators, unions and the community stand together in a “we first” spirit, we can close the gaps, redesign roles and prepare our people for the future.
Mr Speaker, the cost of living has risen globally due to supply chain disruptions, conflicts and tougher business conditions. In Singapore, pressures are compounded by our reliance on imports and tight labour markets. While we can manage volatility, we remain a price-taker. The sustainable path forward is for wages to rise faster than costs, through productivity and through better jobs.
Government support through Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers, U-Save, service and conservancy charges (S&CC) rebates, cash payouts and MediSave top-ups has provided some cushioning for families. But the rising cost of doing business must not be overlooked. Small shops such as food and beverage (F&B) outlets, retailers, minimarts, lifestyle stores, gyms and neighbourhood shops, are place-makers, the heartbeat of our communities. They greet us daily, serve our families for years and give our areas character. They make our communities vibrant and provide comfort in the familiarity of everyday life.
Yet behind the counter, many face this deep anxiety. They pour their savings into renovations and equipment, only to find leases shorter than their recovery periods. For some, rent forms up to 20% of their costs. The looming fear of the next rent increase weighs heavily on their minds. Many cannot simply pass the costs to customers without losing them, nor can they sustain wages for their staff if margins collapse. This uncertainty forces them to worry about survival instead of focusing on growth.
We must give these small businesses greater assurance and I would like to offer a few suggestions. First, we should build on the Fair Tenancy Framework developed during COVID-19. It covers 11 areas of fair terms but remains voluntary and does not address rent escalation. I am not suggesting rent control in any way.
Instead, let us provide incentives, such as tax benefits or recognition for landlords who adopt these fair guidelines. Transparent rental benchmarks, tied to indices like CPI plus a margin for rent escalations, can prevent unreasonable hikes while preserving fairness.
Secondly, we can explore property tax rebates or co-funding schemes for landlords who maintain affordable rents or offer support for landlords who help tenants go digital or improve productivity.
Mr Speaker, this is ultimately about trust and partnership. By embracing a \"we first\" mindset, landlords, businesses and Government can lower costs, reduce uncertainty and give small shops some peace of mind. This might also encourage entrepreneurship and support the startup culture. When our small businesses worry less about survival, they can focus on what matters: improving their services, raising productivity and developing their staff. That is how we keep our communities vibrant, our livelihoods secure and our society coming together.
Mr Speaker, growing our economy is not for the sake of growth alone. It is about securing good jobs for Singaporeans, ensuring rising incomes and improving the quality of life for our people. In every strategy that we take, our end goal must always be clear: to create opportunities that uplift our workers, strengthen our families and build a society where every Singaporean can look to the future with confidence.
Mr Speaker, while these fundamental shifts in the tide have stirred deep anxieties that we must address, we must also remember that change is not only about disruption. Change also brings renewal, new opportunities, new industries and new ways of living. I am encouraged that the Government has formed the Singapore Economic Resilience Taskforce, to help us seize these opportunities and chart our path forward with unity and purpose. In this spirit, I would like to offer a few suggestions on how we can turn this moment of change into one of renewal and growth.
Firstly, on growth industries. Opportunities are opening in AI, advanced manufacturing, biotechnology, clean energy, and sustainability. In the Economic Development Board's (EDB's) report, it was stated that AI adoption could enhance productivity across all sectors, notably adding up to $27 billion to manufacturing alone. In its totality, AI is projected to unlock billions in productivity gains across sectors, while advanced manufacturing and robotics will drive high-value careers in precision engineering. Biotechnology is transforming medicine, food, and materials science and clean energy from renewables to emerging technologies like small modular nuclear reactors will strengthen our energy security.
Beyond these, niche sectors, such as quantum technologies, space and satellite services, cybersecurity, and the blue economy, they all hold potential for new growth. These industries are not the ends in themselves. They are pathways to secure better jobs, higher incomes and long-term competitiveness for our Singaporeans.
Secondly, businesses need clearer, whole-of-Government support to navigate uncertainty. We must refresh our Industry Transformation Maps and align them with the Jobs Transformation Maps, our Company Training Committees (CTCs), our National AI Strategy, our CTO-as-a-Service and all other alphabet soups of support schemes that we have. Many businesses, especially SMEs, find the landscape a bit fragmented and a bit harder to navigate. A single agency or a unified user-oriented portal would help simplify the access, enabling firms to focus on transformation and focus on growth.
By doing so, we strengthen our enterprises, preserve Singapore's position as a trusted global hub and ensure that the opportunities created at the national level translate into tangible gains for workers and families.
Thirdly, we must anchor Singapore's aspiration to remain a global aviation and aerospace hub. And here, I would like to declare my interest as one of the workers in the aerospace industry. Today, Singapore accounts for 10% of the world's global maintenance, repairs and operations (MRO) output. Imagine that our small red dot accounting to 10% of the world's global MRO output. And MRO is one of the key pillars of our Manufacturing 2030 vision, which seeks to grow manufacturing value-add by 50% by 2030.
To sustain this growth, we should review the masterplan for Northeast Singapore holistically, from the developments in Changi Terminal 5 to Changi Airfreight Centre, to the Changi East Urban District and Changi East Industrial Zone, to Changi North, Seletar, Punggol Digital District and the reconfiguration of the Loyang Industrial Estate.
Together with a rethinking of the Pasir Ris-Changi ecosystem, including preserving the rustic charm of Pulau Ubin, the mangroves and both Pasir Ris and Changi Beach, this entire region on the northeast coast can be transformed into a world-class zone to live, to work and to play sustainably, anchored by future growth industries and seamlessly connected by air through Changi Airport, by sea through Tanah Merah Ferry Terminal and to the rest of Singapore via the Cross-Island and East-West MRT lines.
Within less than 60 minutes of Pengerang, just 20 kilometres away and Batam, the Northeast Singapore is also strategically positioned to complement Pengerang's oil and gas sector at the Pengerang Integrated Complex and Batam's manufacturing base in addition to its central location and its global connectivity. Together with the Johor-Singapore Strategic Economic Zone (SEZ), this ecosystem can secure good jobs for Singaporeans, boost supply chain resilience and anchor Singapore firmly within the global economy.
Mr Speaker, hope must also mean inclusion. Growth cannot be just for some. It must be for all. An inclusive society is one where every Singaporean has the chance to contribute and more importantly, flourish. Technology can and must be used for good and there are ways to which we can use technology towards building a more inclusive society
Firstly, through supporting the less able. Assistive technologies, such as screen readers, navigation apps, sensors, provide independence. For example, AI-powered wayfinding tools integrated into Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations can help guide the visually impaired. One of my residents lost his sight in his 50s. He travels with his elderly mother in a wheelchair and his special needs sister who is also in her 50s. Each contributes a different sense of touch, mobility, vision, or knowledge as they navigate through the town. He was excited by the pilot of wayfinding tools, such as CityGeni, to help his family move independently. More can be done for families like this. And with a \"we first\" mindset, agencies and partners can make inclusive innovation a reality.
Secondly, through supporting caregivers. While grants like the Home Caregiving Grant help financially, technology can lighten the load. Smart eldercare sensors, telehealth, AI-enabled scheduling, and robotic aids can reduce strain. Scaling these solutions into community care networks, while keeping them affordable, gives caregivers peace of mind and helps seniors live with dignity. We must find ways to adopt them quicker and scale faster to move beyond pilot trials.
Mr Speaker, Inclusive innovation is not only about compassion. It is about bringing that opportunity. The Assistive Tech sector, CareTech and the Silver Economy are fast-growing industries. By investing here, Singapore can export solutions and become a trusted hub for inclusive technology. We will build not only a competitive economy, but also a compassionate one where every citizen feel they matter and belong.
(In Malay): In my speech earlier, I expressed our thanks to the President for providing a clear backdrop during the Opening of the 15th Parliament. The President reminded us that the world we face today is volatile and he described it not as \"transient headwinds\" but as \"fundamental shifts in the tides.\"
Under such circumstances, two core emotions shape human responses. First, anxiety – the fear of uncertainty. Second, hope – for growth, opportunities and a brighter future. It is through these two lenses that I frame my speech today.
Mr Speaker, around the world, the cost of living is rising due to supply chain disruptions, conflicts, and high global interest rates. In Singapore, this situation is further complicated by our dependence on imports and our tight labour market.
The reality is that we remain as \"price-takers\". The sustainable solution is to ensure wages increase faster than costs, through higher productivity and better jobs.
Therefore, upskilling and mastering new skills must become part of our lives. In my dialogue with Malay union leaders such as Mr Abdul Samad Bin Abdul Wahab, they emphasised how Unions help workers upskill; by shifting mindsets from merely protecting jobs to protecting workers by providing a better future. I would like to thank them for their efforts.
Our community must also leverage on national programmes such as SkillsFuture Credit, WSQ, Career Conversion, Career Transition, and the Tech Accelerator programme. As the Malay saying goes, loosely translated as \"no pain, no gain.\" In Pasir Ris–Changi, we have worked with NTUC to bring these programmes closer to the residents.
While changing tides bring a lot of anxiety, they also bring a lot of hope. New industries are emerging; such as advanced manufacturing, robotics, precision engineering, biotechnology, quantum technology, satellite services and many more. All these are new pathways to better jobs and higher incomes.
To seize these opportunities, we must first raise awareness. Today, there are 13 professional networks at Mendaki in fields such as engineering, technology, sustainability and finance. Through these networks, opportunities are made available to our community. In fact, just last week, a resident shared that her husband got an engineering job through one of these networks. I strongly encourage more in our community to join them.
Additionally, these professional networks also give back to the community. Just last week in Pasir Ris-Changi, the M³ Engineering Professional Network, together with SUTD and Mendaki, organised Robot Wars, where students built AI-based robots, learnt coding, sensors and object recognition. Students from welfare homes also participated. For some participants, this was their first experience with robotics. It was very moving to see their confidence increase and their eyes light up with these new skills. I would like to congratulate the students from Madrasah Aljunied and children from Muhammadiyah Welfare Home who won first and second place in this competition.
Another source of hope is progress for our asatizah. Since 2023, salaries of over 80% of asatizah in mosques and madrasahs have been raised according to Common Salary Guidelines (CSG), with average increases between 5% to 12%. With the implementation of phase three this year, more will be within the CSG guidelines. Asatizah are the pillars of our community, and their work must be recognised and fairly compensated.
The establishment of the Singapore College of Islamic Studies (SCIS) is a long-held aspiration of our community. This college will produce asatizah and future leaders, not only for Singapore, but also for the global context. Its adjacent location to SUSS is very meaningful. It opens up cross-institutional opportunities; combining Islamic studies with fields such as social work, Islamic finance, business, and mental health. This will broaden horizons and career choices for our asatizah.
Also importantly, SCIS will be funded by the Wakaf Masyarakat Singapura; another initiative of our community. This demonstrates our strength as a united community – a \"we first society\" as mentioned by the President.
Mr Speaker, while anxieties exist about the cost of living, jobs, and uncertainty; there is also much hope. By leveraging on national programmes, strengthening professional networks, elevating the status of asatizah and realising SCIS, we can build a brighter future.
Let us work hand in hand to think far ahead, invest in our community, and build pathways with much hope. This is how we transform anxiety into hope and ensure our community continues to progress in the years to come.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, the challenges before us are real. The anxieties of our people are real. The worries of our jobseekers, the struggles of our families coping with costs and the worries of small businesses are real.
Yet, so too are the opportunities. In new industries, in new inclusive innovation and in refreshed economic strategies that can bring about better jobs and better ways to care for our society.
Let us, therefore, choose to be a \"we first\" society. A society where success is not just measured by gross domestic product (GDP), but by how much we care for one another, where growth is inclusive, opportunities are shared and no Singaporean is left behind; where quality of life improves not just for individuals, but for families and communities, where Government, businesses, unions, workers and citizens work together in trust.
This is how we can turn anxiety into hope. This is how we renew our social compact. This is how we can build a stronger, more united Singapore together. Majulah Singapura. Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek to move. [Applause.]
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Sir, I thank the President for his address. While the Workers' Party (WP) is in opposition, we call on Singaporeans to heed the call to build a better Singapore for ourselves and our future generations.
Today, I will highlight what the WP sees as the international and domestic pressures facing us. After that, I will focus on the President's call for a \"we first\" society, a term that Prime Minister Lawrence Wong also used at his National Day Rally last month.
First, the international situation. I entered politics in 2011. I remember at the time, a newly-retired Minister shed tears at a press conference over what \"globalisation had done to Singaporean workers.\" This year, US President Donald Trump has challenged globalisation more directly than ever before. His Liberation Day tariffs in April put the brakes on several decades of an economic era that Singapore had ridden successfully, albeit not without its discontents for some Singaporeans.
For the foreseeable future, nearshoring, friendshoring and protectionism are the order of the day. We enter an uncertain and unpredictable post-SG60 world. Of great concern to us is what sectoral tariffs could be imposed on Singapore, especially for two industries that, together, contribute 40% of our GDP – pharmaceuticals and semi-conductors. [Please refer to the clarification later in the debate.]
To use the parlance of the late US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, the imposition of additional tariffs on Singapore exports to the US are more of a known unknown rather than an unknown unknown.
In the Asia Pacific, we are in the throes of a geostrategic transition. Recently, China showcased both its ambition as well as its alliances at a spectacular military parade commemorating 80 years since the end of World War II. China demonstrated that it is ready to take its place as a leading power in the world.
China, a hugely successful economic power, is fast becoming a military juggernaut. It can no longer bide its time nor hide its strength. To many, this must mean a diminution of US influence in the Asia Pacific. But China appears to have considered that it need not behave like a hegemon and displace Pax Americana. China seems intent on deepening friendships and collaboration, thereby representing itself as a force for stability and cooperation even as it stands up to America whenever it deems necessary.
As for the US, its current administration is recalibrating the norms and values that traditionally underpinned its pre-eminent position in the Asia Pacific and beyond. However, the US still retains significant goodwill from many Asia Pacific countries. Its historical actions at the cost of American blood arrested the advance of Communism in the region. It provided an effective security umbrella that allowed Southeast Asian nations, including Singapore, to grow and prosper.
There may well be enough space for the US and China to coexist in the region even as flashpoints, such as Taiwan, and possible nuclear weapons proliferation in East Asia remain known unknowns. What is clear is that defence spending is rising all around. We must brace for turbulence, even as we hope that the turbulence remains only that, while we look to secure our future in a new strategic environment.
Sir, I ended my Budget speeches in 2024 and 2025 with calls to strengthen our national unity – a multiracial national unity in an uncertain world.
A strong SAF, Home Team and a first-rate diplomatic corps give us the agency to think for ourselves and our own national interests. The current strategic environment is yet another reminder of how critical the Singapore Armed Forces, the Home Team agencies and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs are. It also reinforces the importance of National Service.
The security that our people in uniform provide is an important strength of Singapore. I repeat this call today in light of the President's address.
Domestically, SG60 comes at a unique inflection point for us. In the next few years, one in four Singaporeans will be older than 65 and labour force participation is not likely to rise. This is part of a long-anticipated transition. In fact, the first Ministerial Committee on Ageing was set up decades ago.
However, living through a transition and being on the cusp of it hit differently. The job front is unpredictable, technology is rendering jobs obsolete quicker than ever before, middle-aged workers who change jobs report being unable to command the same salaries and anecdotally, young people are finding it tougher to secure good jobs. In addition, more employers prefer to offer short-term contract jobs rather than permanent positions.
Cost of living continues to dominate as business profit margins get squeezed, particularly for smaller businesses that face steep rental hikes. Even our cultural capital is being hollowed out and in transition to something unfamiliar. From the slow demise of traditional foods to the closing down of cinemas and the downsizing of bookstores, all these contribute to a sense of loss that weighs heavily on many Singaporeans.
These emotions are not unexpected, because Singaporeans do not want to become a people who know the price of everything, but the value of nothing. We must try to preserve as much of the different strands of our cultural tapestry in our national interest instead of resigning ourselves to the inevitability of change. Just as there is value in learning new things, there is value in remembering the past and the wisdom it endows.
At this critical junction in our nation's journey, how does the WP define its Parliamentary role?
Five years ago, at the Opening of Parliament then, I said that the WP will chart an independent path and fulfil its duty as a loyal opposition. Our loyalty is the people and to the nation and, this term, fidelity to the three key functions of Parliament: to make laws, to check on the Government and to scrutinise the state's finances, will come into distinct focus.
On the back of the Opening of Parliament in our first Sitting today, the WP's Members of Parliament (MPs), in line with our critical and inquisitorial rule to hold the Government accountable, have asked topical Parliamentary Questions covering housing and specifically, the Housing and Development Board's (HDB's) Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme (VERS), jobs, education and specifically, bullying in schools, employment, foreign affairs and transport – to name a few.
With so much happening domestically and internationally, the opposition will primarily focus on the function that Parliament demands of us, checking the Government's policies and actions.
Mr Speaker, I wish to assure you that the WP will not file Parliamentary Questions to rack up numbers. Every question we ask is one that needs asking, especially since the opposition does not receive any special Government briefings, unlike the People's Action Party (PAP) MPs; and neither are there Parliamentary Select Committees to scrutinise the work of the various Ministries when Parliament is not in session.
For example, over the last three months, as we heard during Parliamentary Question Time today, there has been a spade of Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) breakdowns from July. To date, there have been, at last count, 15 disruptions, some more significant than others.
Like anything mechanical, breakdowns do occur and this in and of itself is not the issue. However, many Singaporeans find this quick succession of breakdowns to be highly unusual, particularly after significant taxpayer resources have been expended to raise rail reliability over the last decade.
This will have to be scrutinised in Parliament, including the findings and recommendations of the recently established task force under the Land Transport Authority's (LTA's) purview.
Some Singaporeans think that when we ask questions, we are trying to embarrass the Government. The WP does not see it that way.
Checking the Government is a function of system design. This is something our early leaders understood and is an essential feature of the Westminster system we adopted from the British. To borrow an old technological phrase, questioning the Government in Parliament is a feature, not a bug.
Embracing this feature will be an important priority for the WP in this term of Parliament. Where alternative proposals and improvements to existing policies need to be raised, we will raise them accordingly.
If our fellow Singaporean workers and professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) wish to suggest matters for us to raise in this House, please contact us. We welcome inputs which are backed by evidence. We also welcome organisations, including small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and corporates to engage with us with a view towards better policies for our economy and our people.
We believe that the prospect of the opposition raising issues in Parliament has a strong nudging effect in getting the issues recognised and addressed by the Government. We thank all parties for their good faith and engagement, most recently over the issues faced by platform workers. On this, I have filed a Parliamentary Question to delve more deeply into this issue.
All Singaporeans are collectively interested in the betterment of our people. Engagement with the opposition and the WP, in particular, reflects a society that treasures, supports and makes effective use of a balanced political system. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all voters who supported the WP at the last General Elections (GE), regardless of constituency.
A Singapore that understands that it is both government MPs and opposition MPs who contribute to make Singapore worth fighting for, puts Singapore on a stronger footing for the challenges to come.
Mr Speaker, a united society is, however, ultimately rooted in justice and fairness. The individual must feel a sense of belonging to Singapore and an affinity to the community around him or her. This brings me to the President's call to put \"we\" before \"me\". This is a theme that continues from the Prime Minister's National Day Rally.
It is a simple idea, but a timeless one too. Singapore has wrestled with the ambit of such communitarian concepts in the past, but one can understand the significance of reiterating this call in light of present times.
In the late 1980s, the Government introduced what was originally referred to as a \"national ideology\", with the purpose of gradually developing a national identity. This led to the Government white paper on shared values, listing five propositions of what these shared values ought to be.
The White Paper on Shared Values was subject to intense debate over two days in this House. Former Speaker Abdullah Tarmugi argued that two values, first, \"Nation before community and society above self” and second, \"Regard and community support for the individual\", slanted too heavily towards society and community, with not enough premium placed on the individual. He said, and I quote, \"People are afraid that these values would lead to a stifling of the individual. While individualism, per se, is not a good value to promote, over-emphasis on the community could lead to a stifling of innovation and creativity and hence reduce our competitiveness. The line between the two has to be carefully drawn.\"
Another PAP MP, Dr Ong Chit Chung, shared that the most problematic of all values appeared to be \"Consensus instead of Contention\", as there was a fear or suspicion that the Government would use this call for consensus to browbeat critics, stifle creativity and muzzle opponents. Yet another PAP MP asserted that his conversations with students, grassroots leaders and business colleagues gave him, and I quote, \"the distinct impression that many people scoff at the idea of a paper on Shared Values. Most of these things are obvious, they say. Is it necessary for Government to try to push yet another load of sanctimony down our throats?\"
The public reaction and the qualified cynicism aside, the vision of the White Paper itself was not objectionable. Despite references to Singapore as an Asian society, the White Paper acknowledged that not everything Asian was good and not everything Western was bad.
The Senior Minister of State, Dr Tay Eng Soon, sought to clarify that the Government neither wanted, and I quote, \"blind conformity and compliance in the name of nation or of consensus\", which he alluded to as a disease that, I quote, is \"not unknown in the East and that tyranny of the majority may be even worse than individualism\". He argued that the shared values must never be an excuse to stamp out individual ideas and aspirations that can lead to new achievements. His view was that we must always encourage individual excellence.
Are the shared values important today? I believe there is a wisdom to them, because they foment and advance a unifying ethos. And there is evidence that many of us care deeply about what it means to be Singaporean.
In June 2020, the Government published some information on the Singapore Together Emerging Stronger Conversations. That was a conversation series on Singapore's COVID-19 experience and Singaporeans' aspirations for a more resilient post-COVID-19 society. At that time, I filed a Parliamentary Question seeking details about the feedback given by about 17,000 Singaporeans from those conversations. In our political system, where it is sometimes assumed that the proverbial bread-and-butter issues would dominate, one might have thought that the topics of jobs and the economy and separately, digitalisation and technology would rank highest among the topics discussed. However, what ranked at the top were national identity, and shared values and social support. The issues encompassed under national identity and shared values included protecting our vulnerable, support for volunteerism and how we might build a more compassionate and cohesive society.
So, it is clear that the idea of \"we\" is important to Singaporeans. But I would assert that it certainly does not mean suppressing or minifying the importance and central role of the individual and his or her place in Singapore. I would instead argue that \"we\" and \"me\" are perspectives that exist on a continuum. Both \"we\" and \"me\" matter to Singaporeans. A binary treatment is limiting, while an over-emphasis on one is not consistent with our lived experiences. We should aim for excellence as individuals and venture forth with confidence as individuals and be respected by society as individuals, regardless of race, language, religion and backgrounds.
At the same time, an awareness of \"we\" beyond our comfort zones opens opportunities for us not just to be better, but to be the best versions of ourselves. A sense of personal fulfilment and purpose are more likely to be achieved when we contribute to something larger than ourselves and aim beyond self-enrichment and personal outcomes. Perhaps the most important point to be made here is that Singaporeans are well and truly in the driver's seat of shaping the Singapore they wish to see.
While Singaporeans may struggle today to list the five shared values of 1991, as naturally as they say the pledge or national anthem, the importance of living harmoniously in a multiracial and multi-religious society is not lost on many. Increasingly, however, there is a sense that being a member of a racial and religious group, on the one hand, and our identity as Singaporeans are both equally important. For some, like myself and those of my generation, being Singaporean and a part of the country and something larger, edges in importance compared to one's cultural rootedness and sense of loyalty to our individual communities.
For some younger people, the Singapore identity can be said to have even transcended race. The former Chief of Government Communications was recently quoted in a podcast as saying that his younger colleagues did not make much of the fact that the squadron commander who led the flypast at this year's National Day Parade was Malay. I would suggest that this shows that, for a younger generation of Singaporeans, at least some Singaporeans, a democratic society based on justice and equality ought not to be declared just in words but must be manifested in deeds. It may well be that the aspiration of the pledge has morphed, at least for some, into an expectation. We should acknowledge and even celebrate such expectations as the ultimate reflection of a more united people than ever before. It portends a bright future for Singapore.
At the same time, we must be aware that our multiracial reality can be a soft underbelly that malicious actors may exploit to divide us. Hybrid conflicts are already a reality and we can see how misinformation and disinformation, especially online, have been employed by some to fuel narratives that divide communities. In speech, be it online or offline, it is easy to bully and intimidate others with rank, popularity and labels, and by punching down at those who may not have the full facts or see the world differently. It is much harder to take on someone your own size or bigger or engage an issue respectfully regardless the counterparty. But we should all choose the more difficult path of empathy and mutual respect, even if we agree to disagree.
In Singapore, we must actively fight the tendency to think tribally on a day-to-day basis. As we negotiate the way forward, let us remember to treat each other as equals. We must persevere and work on this as a responsibility of each generation and leave a better Singapore behind for the next generation. This is even as we hold dear and celebrate our individual mother tongues, traditions, religions and cultures. We do this in an English-speaking environment, one that goes a long way to create an accessible and welcoming global city for trade and investment, and an accessible and expansive public space for all Singaporeans. If we succeed in building on this foundation, we will not just shine but survive and thrive well beyond SG60.
To conclude, Sir, Singaporeans should be proud of our diversity, including our political diversity, and yet, be united as one people. The WP will continue to play its part. On behalf of all the WP MPs, I wish the Government and all civil servants well in this term of Parliament. We look forward to serving as the loyal opposition for all Singaporeans and working for Singapore.
Mr Speaker: Order. We have been in the Chambers for close to five hours. I propose to take a break now and I will suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.45 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.24 pm until 4.45 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.45 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
PRESIDENT'S SPEECH
(Debate on Address of Thanks – first allotted day)
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Ng Chee Meng.
Mr Ng Chee Meng (Jalan Kayu): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Government in the 14th term of Parliament and tripartite partners for their strong support to the Labour Movement. Because of our collective efforts, many workers, including professionals, managers and executives (PMEs), have seen real improvements in wages, welfare and work prospects.
Amidst rising cost of living, we raised our lower wage workers' incomes. Platform workers now have the Central Provident Fund (CPF), workplace injury compensation and the right to be represented by Platform Workers Associations. Workplace Fairness has also been strengthened so that all workers – especially our mature PMEs – are assured of a level playing field.
We provided new support for our involuntarily unemployed workers and supported our caregivers' flexible work arrangement (FWA) requests. Senior workers now have a longer runway, should they choose to do so, to work.
The Labour Movement also catalysed business and workforce transformation through more than 3,600 CTCs, promoting win-win outcomes for businesses and workers at the same time.
But Mr Deputy Speaker, beyond policies and numbers, what mattered most really, is the impact on ordinary people and workers. Amidst the rising cost of living, every wage increase, every new protection and every training scheme made a real difference. Families and workers were able to be better provided for. This is why I am in the House today, to ensure that every Singaporean worker and family can face the future with confidence.
Sir, as we step into this new term of Parliament, Singapore faces significant external and internal challenges. Externally, the world is more fractured. Trade wars, tech wars, hot wars are redefining the rules-based order that Singapore has long depended on. And technologies, like AI are reshaping how we live, learn and work – faster than many of us can keep up with.
Internally, the realities of becoming a superaged society will hit us. More of our workers will be older and more families will experience more strain from caregiving responsibilities.
During my block visits in Jalan Kayu and in many conversations with workers at union events and community gatherings, I have heard the anxieties of our people. Young graduates worry if they will find good jobs; mid-career and older PMEs fear being displaced by AI and economic restructuring; families struggle with the pressures of caregiving – wondering how they can cope with the financial, physical and emotional strains.
These are not abstract concerns. They are the daily worries of ordinary Singaporeans trying to secure a better future for themselves and their loved ones.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Labour Movement supports the direction laid out by our President – to transform our economy amidst AI disruption, while ensuring that no Singaporean is left to journey alone. To achieve this, the Labour Movement calls on the Government to work with tripartite partners on three fronts:
One, ensure good jobs for every generation, so young graduates can start well and have opportunities to grow; mid-career workers and PMEs can adapt and seize new opportunities; and older workers can continue contributing with dignity.
Two, uplift our vulnerable lower-wage workers, platform workers and freelancers by ensuring fair earnings and dignified work.
Three, stronger support for our caregivers, so no Singaporean has to choose between caring for their loved ones and keeping their job.
My fellow labour MPs and I will outline the priorities of the Labour Movement to advance these fronts. I will focus my address on two areas today, ensuring good jobs amidst AI disruption and better support for caregivers.
Let me first speak about AI disruption. AI has great economic potential for Singapore. It can boost productivity and help businesses stay competitive. On the flip side, I know many workers, including PMEs, see AI as a threat.
Big companies, such as Amazon and Microsoft, are cutting jobs. Drivers worry about being displaced and replaced by autonomous vehicles. They do not know what AI will mean for them and their jobs. I fully understand these concerns. It can be daunting not knowing what to expect and perhaps worse, how to keep up. They say: \"I know AI is here, but Sec-Gen, I don't know what I can do.\"
This is why we must do more to equip our workers to meet AI disruption head on, bring the right tools and know-how to the businesses and our workers, so that they can take proactive steps to seize AI-driven opportunities.
To this end, NTUC stands ready to support the National AI Strategy. We want to work with the Government and tripartite partners to put forth a National AI Adoption and Training Initiative. I will call this initiative \"AI-Ready SG\" as a working name. It will serve as a one-stop platform to integrate existing resources from Government and tripartite partners, so businesses and workers can be truly AI ready.
Through \"AI-Ready SG\", workers can access dedicated resources for upskilling and navigate career transitions. Employers can tap into resources to embark on practical AI transformation. The \"AI-Ready SG\" initiative can ride on the CTC ecosystem to support AI transformation. And this goes in part in answering some colleagues' earlier speeches about converging business interest and marrying it to workers' interest.
Businesses get help to figure out what AI means to them, chart out their transformation roadmap and implement projects that deliver real productivity gains. At the same time, workers, including PMEs can better map out their AI skills upgrading pathways, boosting their job security and work prospects along with their companies' business transformation.
In fact, NTUC and employers have started using the CTC model to catalyse AI transformation. Take BSL Unify, a manufacturing services company, for example. Through the CTC, they embarked on a company-wide digital transformation programme and implemented an AI-powered service portal.
Previously, customer service and operations staff relied on excel sheets to labouriously track inventory and manage enquiries manually. Today, the portal has saved BSL Unify more than 2,500 man-hours per year, with a 40% efficiency improvement through streamlined processes and smart data management.
Staff and workers also receive a monthly skills allowance of $150 to encourage and enhance their AI skills, so a true win-win for both business transformation and workers outcome.
This is just one example of how \"AI-Ready SG\" can help companies move up the value chain and bring workers, including PMEs, along. The CTCs power these efforts. As of July this year, we have committed more than $7.4 million in CTC grants to AI-related projects, which is about 11% of the total number of CTC projects.
Mr Deputy Speaker, let us take heed of the President's call for businesses, AI must mean better business. For workers, including PMEs, AI upskilling must mean better jobs, better wages and better work prospects. If we can do these, we will be able exploit AI to transform our economy and better Singaporean lives.
Let me now turn to caregiving. I thank the Government and tripartite partners for measures like enhanced paternity and shared parental leave. Yet, many workers still struggle with the day-to-day reality of caregiving.
Balancing a job while tending to the needs of a sick elderly parent, a child or an adult with special needs, can be exhausting. It is not just about managing the time. It is about the stress, the sleepless nights and the emotional weight that caregivers carry every single day.
I recently met Mr Goh, a 45-year-old freelancer and beneficiary of NTUC's U-Care Fund. He and his wife are both working and they have four children – two of whom have special needs. One child requires round-the-clock care. He shared, and he is grateful that while subsidies help, he worries about medical expenses chipping away at their family's savings. What troubles him most is not just about today's struggles, but the future. Will his children be able to cope when he and his wife can no longer take care of them? Will they be able to retire with dignity? More than anything, he hopes that families like his would not be left to carry the heavy load of caregiving alone.
His story is not unique. During my house visits in Jalan Kayu, caregivers shared with me some of the same worries – how to juggle work and caregiving, and the stress and mental toll it takes on them. We must do more to support caregivers to take care of themselves and their loved ones.
Sir, let us not stop at empathising with caregivers like Mr Goh. We must do more to strengthen caregivers' support in these areas. First, help caregivers stay in work. Having a job is essential for long-term financial resilience. We must expand FWAs and enshrine caregiving leave, making them more widespread, accessible and most importantly, stigma-free.
Second, help caregivers who have left work, return to work. We must redouble our efforts on \"Back to Work\" programmes to ease their transition – especially for those who have stepped off for long periods of time. We must better design and enhance our existing schemes, to bridge skills gaps, find suitable job opportunities, provide mentorship and give employer incentives to hire returning caregivers.
Third, strengthen the ecosystem of care. We must make bold moves to ensure that care support for elderly and disabled loved ones is available, affordable and accessible. While we are moving in the right direction, we must be prepared to review our policies to better support our caregivers. This includes reviewing MediSave limits and caregiving subsidies to defray costs, provide CPF top-ups for primary caregivers with insufficient retirement adequacy, enhancing community care services, including for persons with special needs, persons with mental health conditions and more and more with dementia. And importantly, strengthening care coordination so families do not have to struggle to navigate the generous but multiple schemes across different agencies, not knowing what to do.
Sir, many of us are caregivers currently, or will be at some point. Let us take bold steps to ensure that Singaporeans have the support they need to care for their loved ones, while staying resilient at work and at home. In Mandarin, please, Sir.
(In Mandarin): In the coming years, our workers will face greater challenges. On the one hand, there is the impact brought about by the rapid development of AI. On the other hand, they have responsibilities caring for families.
The Labour Movement calls for tripartite partners to jointly promote a national AI training and adaptation programme to help enterprises and workers transform and embrace the new era. For businesses, AI could bring better development potential for workers, especially PMETs. AI can bring higher quality employment opportunities, higher wages and better career development prospects.
As Singapore moves into a super aged society, more workers and families need to strike a balance between work and caring for loved ones, which is truly not easy. We must strengthen support for caregivers to ensure that no one is forced to make difficult choices between career and family due to caring for loved ones.
We can approach this from three areas.
First, we must help caregivers remain in the workforce. We recommend expanding the scope of flexible work arrangements and establishing a comprehensive caregiver leave system.
Second, we must help caregivers return to the workforce. We can launch a national return to work programme to reduce difficulties they face in returning to work, especially for those workers who have been away from their position for extended periods due to caregiving responsibilities.
Third, we must take decisive actions to build a stronger caregiving ecosystem, particularly to provide support for elderly, sick and disabled loved ones. We should boldly promote reforms in caregiving services to ensure that relevant resources are accessible, affordable and convenient for those in need.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, let me conclude. Sir, I am deeply honoured and privileged to return to this House. I entered this House on a narrow margin. But I will serve with full conviction, because I stand to be the voice for our workers, fighting for better jobs, better lives and a brighter for all.
To the voters in Jalan Kayu, thank you for the trust you have placed in me. I will honour it and I will serve you to the best of my abilities.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as Singapore confronts accelerating AI disruption and rising caregiving demands, let us all in this Parliament keep faith with the workers, caregivers and their families who want a chance at a better life. Together, let us build a Singapore where every worker can succeed at work, where every family can thrive and where every Singaporean can journey forward with hope and dignity. For every worker. For every family. For Singapore. [Applause.]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Gan Kim Yong): Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak and to join in the debate to thank the President.
Sir, over the last six decades, Singapore has built a strong and dynamic economy driven by global enterprises, homegrown champions and an ecosystem of small and medium enterprises. This has in turn created good jobs, lifted real wages and raised the standard of living for Singaporeans.
Our success has been built on solid fundamentals – sustained investments in infrastructure, extensive global connectivity, a skilled workforce and a pro-business environment.
Just as importantly, being a small and open economy, we have benefited from an open, rules-based, multilateral trading system. This has enabled companies here to participate in global supply chains, benefit from global economic growth as well as established Singapore as a hub for goods, services, capital and talent.
But we are now facing three fundamental challenges.
In many parts of the world, countries are turning inward, erecting barriers to trade and investment and prioritising economic security and national interest. The rapid acceleration of technological advancements such as AI will disrupt industries and jobs. Last but not least, our resource constraints, such as land, carbon and manpower, will become increasingly binding.
However, amidst these challenges and difficulties, there are opportunities and new possibilities.
Companies around the world are looking to diversify their production bases and supply chains in response to the evolving global economic landscape. This will create new opportunities for us to capture new investments and enter new markets. Our region has strong growth potential. It has a young population, a rising middle class and good physical and digital connectivity, and it is poised to be one of the fastest growing regions in the world.
Technology, while it may disrupt industries and jobs, can also open up new frontiers for research and innovation and drive the creation of new products and services and even new industries. Similarly, the low-carbon transition will catalyse the growth of the green economy such as green manufacturing, clean energy, carbon services and trading, and sustainable finance.
Five months ago, we had set up the Singapore Economic Resilience Taskforce to support firms and workers in navigating the immediate headwinds as well as to refresh our longer-term economic blueprint so that we can secure our place in the new economic order.
While there is now greater certainty, greater clarity over the tariff rates that the US has imposed on many of its key trading partners, significant uncertainties remain. Negotiations with several countries, including China and India, are still ongoing. Details on how the deals will be implemented remain unclear. In fact, we have already seen a number of conflicting interpretations emerge.
The US has hinted at further sectoral tariffs such as on semiconductors and pharmaceuticals and that these are imminent. I just want to take this opportunity to clarify that these two sectors contribute about 7% of our GDP, not 40% as Mr Pritam Singh pointed out. But I should say that even at 7%, they are significant.
The full effects of these tariffs will take time to flow through in the months and years ahead. The Singapore Economic Resilience Taskforce will continue to monitor the developments and assess the impact of the tariffs on our businesses and workers.
Our current support measures, including those announced at this year's Budget and Committee of Supply, are still relevant and helpful. These include extensions and enhancements to the Double Tax Deduction for Internationalisation, the Market Readiness Assistance Grant as well as the Enterprise Financing Scheme.
We have also announced that we will roll out the Business Adaptation Grant from next month to help companies impacted by the tariffs to adapt their business operations and strengthen their supply chain resilience.
We will also support our workers. To help our jobseekers better identify suitable job opportunities, we have stepped up our career advisory and guidance services, including through NTUC and e2i. We will roll out the GRaduate Industry Traineeships Programme from next month to help fresh graduates gain industry experience and skills, which will facilitate their transition into full-time employment.
We are prepared to do more for our companies and our workers if necessary.
The global developments we have seen over the past few months are not a passing storm. Instead, they point towards a changed world – a new norm that is more fragmented, with sharper competition for investments and a shift towards economic security and national interest. These call for a new economic blueprint to steer Singapore forward in this changed world.
That is why we embarked on the Economic Strategy Review. The Economic Strategy Review is consulting and engaging stakeholders and will submit its recommendations next year. I will not want to preempt their conclusions at this point. But let me just talk broadly about our approach.
First, we must strengthen our positioning in existing growth sectors and establish a strong foothold in new areas of growth, as pointed out by Mr Sharael Taha.
One existing growth area is advanced manufacturing. Over the decades, we have established Singapore as a global node in key sectors such as semiconductors, healthcare, specialty chemicals and aerospace.
I attended the opening of ST Engineering's new engine MRO facility last week. In addition to ST Engineering, we are also a key aerospace manufacturing and MRO site for leading firms such as SIA Engineering, GE Aerospace, Rolls Royce and Collins Aerospace.
Singapore accounts for 10% of the global output for the MRO market and close to 20% of the global market share in engine MRO. We are supporting companies to build new repair and process development capabilities, deploy robotics and automation solutions and conduct research and development (R&D) in AI, additive repairs and electrification technologies. These moves will strengthen Singapore's positioning as Asia's leading aerospace hub and a critical node in global supply chains.
We have also established our position as a leading services hub, such as in commodity trading, digital industries, tourism, financial services and professional services. We will build on this foundation to further reinforce Singapore's status as a services hub for the region, especially with the fast-growing digital economy.
We must also position ourselves well to establish a strong, early foothold in new growth sectors.
One such area is in precision medicine, which is projected to grow at an average of 11% annually to reach a size of US$300 billion globally by 2035. Our strengths as a leading biomedical sciences hub put us in a good position to capture opportunities in the research, development and commercialisation of life science tools, diagnostic testing and therapeutics in this rapidly growing sector.
In addition to precision medicine, we are also exploring other potential growth areas such as AI and deep tech, green economy, autonomous vehicles and space.
Second, we will make Singapore a home for leading firms. We will reinforce the presence of today's industry leaders and nurture companies with the potential to become future industry leaders.
We have established a strong base of industry leaders in key sectors. We will work with them to further grow their businesses and anchor new high value-added activities here in Singapore. For example, in the healthcare sector, eight out of the top 10 biopharmaceutical companies have established their manufacturing sites or R&D activities here. Seven out of the 10 top life science tools companies have significant R&D and manufacturing activities in Singapore. This has enabled us to be among the top global manufacturing sites for high-value manufacturing instruments and consumables.
We will partner with these industry leaders to establish best-in-class manufacturing facilities and R&D activities, develop new capabilities such as AI and expand their product range.
Many Singapore enterprises are also industry leaders in their respective sectors. We will support them to deepen their capabilities and help them to expand overseas. One example is Sembcorp. To date, the company has established a total capacity in renewable energy generation of close to 18 gigawatts overseas in countries such as China, India and Vietnam. This is an example of how our Singapore companies are tapping into growth opportunities overseas.
By growing in overseas markets, these companies will become bigger and stronger to support the value creation, innovation and headquarters functions here in Singapore. This will also reinforce our status as a hub for globally competitive firms.
There are companies which may be small today but have the potential to become future industry leaders. We will seek them out and anchor them in Singapore, so that they may be new engines of growth for our economy in time to come. One such category of companies are startups.
Ambiq Micro is a good example. Ambiq manufactures ultra-low power processors that consume one-tenth of the power compared to their competitors. Their technology can be found in smart watches and was used to power up the TraceTogether token during COVID-19. Ambiq established their presence in Singapore in 2021 and has since grown and successfully listed. To support their international growth, the company has established their regional headquarters and R&D activities here in Singapore and we hope to further anchor their presence in Singapore.
At the same time, we will study how we can better support our local startups and entrepreneurs from initial stages to scale-up and grow. This could include access to growth capital, space and infrastructure needs, and partnerships in overseas markets.
One example is Aliena. Aliena is a space-tech startup that develops electric propulsion systems which enable small satellites to fly closer to Earth for higher quality data collection. With support from Enterprise Singapore's Global Innovation Alliance, Aliena worked with partners in the United Kingdom to develop a technology that uses water electrolysis for electric propulsion systems. These collaborations enabled Aliena to expand its customer base and operationalise their footprint, and the company has seen a more than 300% year-on-year increase in revenue last year.
Third, we will strengthen our fundamentals to stay competitive. Let me highlight three key fundamentals. One, our capacity to deploy and diffuse new technologies. Each new wave of technology, from computerisation, the Internet and now to AI, has shown that it is not just the technological breakthroughs themselves, but the ability and speed at which we can deploy and diffuse them effectively across the economy that determines whether we can sustain our competitiveness.
We must, therefore, be a nation of both innovators and fast adopters. Take artificial intelligence (AI) for example. We have made good progress in accelerating AI-driven innovation through the establishment of AI Centres of Excellence. At the same time, we must complement this by broadening and deepening AI adoption across the broad base of enterprises, including SMEs. We will develop AI playbooks and toolkits to guide companies in adopting AI-driven solutions, as well as raise the AI fluency among both technical professionals and non-technical professionals.
Two, our skilled workforce. The quality of our human capital has been a key competitive advantage for Singapore. As we transform our economy towards higher value-added activities, we must also ensure that our upskilling and reskilling efforts keep pace. We must empower workers with new skills for the future, including being AI-fluent, so as to remain relevant. Similarly, we want our workers to gain overseas work experience and exposure. This will position them well to take on regional and global leadership roles in future. We must also stay open to global talent, so that we may tap on their strengths to complement our resident workforce. This is critical to ensure that our industries and firms stay globally competitive.
Three, careful and long-term planning. Our years of investments in our port and airport infrastructure have been critical to Singapore’s excellent connectivity today, which underpins our role as a regional hub. Similarly, we must plan for the energy transition and help our businesses transition to a sustainable future. This is why we are pursuing multiple pathways to decarbonise our energy mix. We are ramping up our domestic solar deployment, facilitating low-carbon electricity imports and building capabilities in emerging low-carbon alternatives, such as hydrogen and nuclear energy. We will calibrate the pace of the transition carefully. Even as we decarbonise, we must ensure that Singapore stays cost-competitive and our energy security is safeguarded.
Even as we secure our long-term growth, we have not lost sight of the challenges that some of our SMEs are facing, including those in the retail and F&B sectors, as well as our heartland enterprises. This is because of a variety of factors, including more intense competition from e-commerce players, shifts in consumer preferences and rising costs. We have rolled out several initiatives to support such businesses. For example, those in F&B can tap on Enterprise Singapore’s FoodX programme and heartland enterprises can tap on the Enhanced Visual Merchandising Programme and the Heartland Enterprise Placemaking Grant to revamp their storefront to drive more business. Our CDC and SG60 vouchers will also encourage consumers to spend at the heartland enterprises. We will help these SMEs raise their productivity, restructure their operations and rejuvenate their businesses.
I mentioned earlier that despite the challenges ahead, there are opportunities for Singapore to grow our economy. We expect to grow at about 2-3% per annum over the next decade on average. This is comparable to many other small, advanced economies, such as New Zealand, Switzerland and Sweden. But we should not take that as a given. Instead, we should try to aim higher, take advantage of the window of opportunities over the next few years to achieve a faster rate of growth if we can, before we settle down to the 2%-3% trend over the long term.
But this will not be easy. Our foreign worker policy has remained unchanged. We expect our workforce to grow just about 1% per annum over the next decade, given our ageing workforce and falling birthrates. We also expect our productivity to grow by about 1%-2% per annum over the next decade. This is already challenging, judging by the historical experience of economies with similar size and level of development. There will also be times when the global economy will slow down and our growth will also slow down consequently. And, therefore, that will bring us to between 2%-3% per annum.
However, we see opportunities to get a larger productivity lift from technology, such as AI, robotics as well as automation. We will also grow other higher value-added industries as I have outlined before. If we do it right, we may be able to add 1% and achieve 3%-4% growth instead of 2%-3%, and in very good years, maybe even more.
I spoke earlier about how Singapore’s success has been closely intertwined with an open, rules-based, multilateral trading system. Trade is important. Trade is three times our GDP. Singapore pursues an active trade strategy through our Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and other platforms. These FTAs have opened doors for our companies to access new markets, diversify supply chains and build deeper economic partnerships around the world. Our network of FTAs also makes us an attractive destination for foreign investments and has enabled us to build a resilient economy that provides good jobs for our people. We must double down on our efforts to preserve and expand our international economic space.
Bilaterally, we will deepen our cooperation and integration with our key economic partners. Both the US and China remain our key economic partners. The US is our largest foreign investor and China is our largest goods trading partner. While competition between the US and China has intensified, we must continue to work with both US and China in areas of mutual interest and mutual benefit.
India is another economy that is poised to grow strongly in the years ahead. Earlier this month, we launched the Roadmap for the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between India and Singapore, outlining areas, such as semi-conductors, industrial parks and capital market connectivity, where both countries could strengthen economic cooperation. Beyond India, we are deepening our economic cooperation with other key economies, such as Australia, the European Union (EU), Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates and the list goes on.
Closer to home, we are also deepening our economic cooperation with our immediate neighbours, including in Johor through the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone and in Batam-Bintan-Karimun (BBK). We are further exploring how the three of us can work together for even stronger synergies. Regionally, we are working within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to deepen our regional integration, as well as to broaden our cooperation with other external partners. We have recently concluded the negotiations to upgrade the ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement and we are making good progress towards substantial conclusion of the ASEAN Digital Economy Framework Agreement later this year.
ASEAN is working with the Gulf Cooperation Council to enhance trade and investment flows and also working to establish a dialogue with the EU and with the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. And last week, Singapore, together with 13 other small, medium and trade-dependent economies, launched the Future of Investments and Trade (FIT) Partnership. The FIT Partnership is an informal group that will champion a forward-looking trade agenda and work together on areas, such as supply chain resilience, investment facilitation, non-tariff barriers and trade facilitation, as well as leveraging on technology.
These examples illustrate how Singapore will continue to broaden its network of economic partnerships, including in areas, like digital economy and green economy. And by doing so, we will open up more opportunities for our businesses, diversify our markets and strengthen our resilience in an increasingly fragmented world. These efforts will also strengthen the rules-based trading system.
The World Trade Organisation (WTO) is not perfect, but it remains an important foundation on which to build a better global, rules-based trade architecture. For sure, the WTO needs to be reformed to stay relevant and effective. We will work with like-minded partners to reform and modernise the WTO, and reinforce an open, fair, rules-based multi-lateral trading system, so that small, trade-dependent economies, like Singapore, can continue to thrive in the global economy.
Mr Speaker, Singapore’s economic journey has never been an easy one. With limited land, manpower and natural resources, we have to work harder and plan longer, further ahead and move faster than others. We can take heart at the success we have achieved over the past six decades, but we cannot afford to be complacent. To secure our future in a changed world, we must stay globally competitive, by building strong industries, anchoring leading firms here, grow our own enterprises, strengthening our capacity to embrace technology, investing in our workforce and finding ways to overcome our resource constraints.
We must also continue to expand our international economic space, by strengthening our network of trade and investment, reinforcing a rules-based global trading system and positioning Singapore as a trusted hub in a more uncertain and turbulent world. Our circumstances may be challenging, but our foundations are strong. Together with determination and imagination, we can continue to grow our economy, create good opportunities for our people and build a better and brighter future for Singapore and Singaporeans.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru. Leader of the Opposition, you wanted a clarification of the Deputy Prime Minister?
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Deputy Speaker, it is just a clarification on my speech where I should have said that the broad sectoral tariffs would hurt demand for Singaporean products, including semi-conductors, consumer electronics and pharmaceutical goods, which account for 40% of exports to the US. I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for correcting my speech and stating that pharmaceutical goods and semi-conductors contribute 7% of our GDP.
Mr Deputy Speaker: So, just to confirm, you are clarifying your own speech, not the Deputy Prime Minister's, correct? Right. Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mr Deputy Speaker, over four months have flown by since the GE and it feels like we have since lived a lifetime. Our journey in Sengkang started in 2020 and the next five years went by like a roller coaster. We were carried through ups and downs, in no small part due to those who stood by us and who were our rocks as we were tossed around by turbulence.
Through this, our team of volunteers showed up every day, week after week, all doing their part to make sure that we were able to carry on our work within the community for our residents in Sengkang and for that, we are deeply grateful. These five years have crystallised how being an elected MP is an incredible privilege and responsibility afforded to us here in this House. We saw joy and pride in the eyes of parents sharing pictures of how much their children have grown visiting our meet-the-people's sessions (MPS) to show us with excitement their children's EduSave awards. We also sat with residents grieving loved ones and other losses. Thank you for sharing these precious moments with us. We look forward to working alongside you to deepen and continue the relationship to work together to make Sengkang and Singapore a better place for all.
A theme that has played in my mind on results night and ever since, is the power of us and not just the strength of us but also the full spectrum of who we are as a people, our resilience, our skills and our values, but also our limitations, mistakes and flaws. And instead of viewing these as opposite sides of the coin, I have come to see these as part of the richness of the tapestry that comprises our towns, our society and our people.
Compared with five years ago, the world has undergone many changes, even as memories fade, of the pains and coming together in the face of COVID-19, we see living pressures continue to mount. Global conflicts and the straining of the previously accepted world order, add to concerns about climate change and it is no wonder that there is so much talk about climate anxiety, a mental health crisis. We are also faced with ongoing challenges to our own food security in Singapore and how to forge forward to balance where our country sits in a world where sustainability challenges seem insurmountable. Additionally, when financial pressures grow, community often takes the back seat.
Individuals, families and social relationships are put under strain: physical and mental health declines, civic engagement drops and people withdraw from social activities to save money or because they feel ashamed. In communities, social capital may be weakened, diminishing community resilience, risking a downward spiral where vulnerable groups end up even more disproportionately affected by weak economic winds. These are not just abstract concepts.
Ask ourselves, compared with five years ago, are we a stronger, kinder, more inclusive society? In my maiden speech in 2020, I talked about how I felt that the perception of a lack of social mobility and the presence of elitism, regardless of data, is a real and often overlooked danger. More than five years on, where are we? This year, business and employment sentiment survey show dips and many expect these to remain depressed.
How are we faring in terms of the perception that our people have of our much cherished system of meritocracy? How often, too, have we over the last five years had fellow Singaporeans give us a shrug and say, what to do? Not because we have given up, but because we feel pressured up against forces that are just so strong. So, what have we done to prevent this feeling of helplessness in the face of global uncertainty and challenge from taking root?
I believe that the answer to this is in the power of community, of a people-centred community. Human beings are essentially social in nature, relying on one another for our well-being. In a world where scarcity starts to dominate, it is where we have to band together to make best use of whatever resources we have to pool our strengths. Thus, I have been deeply heartened that in the month since our election in May this year, we have been approached by numerous organisations and individuals seeking to partner us toward the betterment of our community of our Sengkang residents.
This deepening of the networks of our community in Sengkang and beyond is something we deeply appreciate. From initiatives to create strong connections within a community to be friendless programmes to better support those in distress, to fostering deep and meaningful integration with those living with disabilities and encouraging residents to explore and engage more with home-based businesses within the community. These are some examples of groups that have reached out to us.
They hope that by working with the elected MPs, the elected councillors of the Town Council, they could join us in ensuring that our resources are maximised for the good of our residents. These efforts may seem small, particularly, when compared against huge movements or organisations, such as national-level agencies, like the People's Association. However, they have given my party colleagues and I invaluable insight and a chance to explore these additional facets of the community and to get to know our people better as their elected representatives. This will eventually translate and inform our work as legislators here in this House. They are also an important acknowledgement that the voice of our people matter, that their collective choice to send my colleagues and I into this House is legitimate and accepted.
I also hope that this trickle will eventually bring us to more collaborations, more acceptance that political diversity is important and here to stay. Community partners should eventually see us as nodes through which we will help our communities overcome challenges, fix problems and grow beyond their current limitations. Ultimately, my hope is that this leads to a shift toward working for a country that is ultimately better able to adapt to myriad challenges.
And as I have mentioned earlier, while knowing our strengths is key, we also have to sit with our limitations to truly see our flaws candidly. This can be discomforting, even raw and terrifying. But this honesty and ability to sit with our past and current shortcomings is how we enable our growth as a country to happen. So, I believe that it is not just about whether it is \"me first\" or \"we first\", but \"us together\".
We have spoken about the Government's planned evolution from \"me first\" to \"we first\" here. The Government has rightly, like any sensible government, spoken about national security, nimble economy and increased assurance at every stage of life. But what I hope to add is a recognition of why \"me first\", as an ideology emerged amidst the wider formation of our nation. We have moved from the first formal residence hundreds of years ago to informal immigration from the region and our merger and de-merger with Malaysia.
I have noticed, too, that \"me first\" is often said to be a natural response to our highly financialised and immigration-centric society and economy: owning the fanciest cars, getting the top MNC jobs, owning freehold landed property as a means of overcoming the constraints of the country that we live in. Yet we are always told that everything around us will change, everything is insecure, we risk losing it all.
And under this cloud of scarcity, leaving out \"me first\", it is no wonder that we often see this response as greed, selfishness, sharp elbows, no care for the weak in the society, no care for those without a voice, no care for the planet we share. Our response to this less-than-ideal state is not to be anti-immigrant or anti-capitalist, particularly as our country has been built of an environment that is the opposite of that.
But as a first response, I hope we can once more look at the dashboard of how to measure progress, which I spoke about during the last few Budgets. This measurement of outcomes, apart from GDP, would help us to ensure that some things in the public sphere would not change so that we may find alternative spheres of wealth, rather than just be guided by economical thinking. Heritage should be kept alive, including our schools, community spaces, natural spaces that we and our parents went to.
We should stem the erasure of community heritage currently perceived to be under threat from forces, such as rent and high operating costs. Our non-physical cultures in the form of languages, arts, hobbies need to be supported as they are threatened by \"me first\" ideology. The first step to do that is to start ways in which to quantify these sources of wealth, as I have called for previously with the developmental dashboard.
It is, thus, very exciting to learn more about initiatives, such as the collaboration between NUS and the Tsao Pao Chee Institute to explore, using Singapore and China as case studies, a new framework integrating environmental, social and governance principles with inner development. The hope is that this work can help governments design systems rooted in sustainability, dignity and shared purpose beyond GDP as a measure of success.
The Government also paints a tender picture of a community where the opposite of \"me first\" comprises citizens who give up seats on trains, taking initiatives. But there are also things which the Government should not directly try to affect. Using the analogy of a garden, we should note the symbiotic interactions between those living in it, the harmony between macrofauna and microfauna, down to tiny insects, and the essential interactions in the soil to help a garden thrive.
As policy-maker and enforcer of the law, the Government plays the role of a gardener who occasionally pulls out infestations, provides bigger plots and waters the plants during times of drought. Having good intentions to prune carefully and balance fertiliser and pest control is essential, but not enough. The Government must also support the garden to grow, to allow it space to breathe. We must have reliable, physical and intangible spaces within the garden, combined with accessible ways of moving, that allow people to meet one another, like the void decks of old.
How can we have a target population for a garden when we have not made space for denizens to discover themselves and grow? We must allow space for some rewilding. Stop worrying overly about the precise shape of our community. We must trust that by removing barriers, the inherent wisdom of a population with a mindset of abundance will eventually guide itself to an ever-evolving system that encourages us to flourish together. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): Thank you very much for the support you have given me and my WP colleagues in recent years. Besides serving constituents, in this term of Parliament, we will continue to diligently carry out the mandate that Singaporeans have entrusted to us. In the legislative process, we will continue necessary governance oversight, and checks and balances. A sound political system needs to effectively and reasonably reflect different voices in society, including minority interests, avoiding monopolisation of politics by the majority. As one of the few opposition voices in a chamber dominated by one party, our responsibility is even greater.
This year marks the 60th anniversary of independence. As Singaporeans, we should be proud of the achievements we have achieved together and feel fortunate for our success. Singapore, whether after independence, during the colonial period, or even earlier, has always been a society that accommodates various ethnic groups, religious beliefs, languages and cultures. Mutual respect, integration and maintaining an open attitude are the foundations behind Singapore's success. Facing turbulent and uncertain externality, we need to cherish our diversity even more, which allows us to communicate and have dialogue with people of different positions and find space for cooperation.
We hope for sincere exchange and learn from it. What is needed is mutual tolerance, humble listening, honest sharing and seeking common ground whilst respecting differences, rather than deliberate avoidance or unnecessary reservations, and certainly not one-sided discourse. After all, a gentleman seeks harmony but not uniformity, whilst a petty person seeks uniformity but not harmony. Forcing others to accept oneself does not necessarily lead to greater harmony or inclusiveness. In an unpredictable environment, what is needed is bold thinking and bridge-building.
We must understand that diversity is strength, not fearsome opposition or division to be feared. Singapore needs confidence, courage and magnanimity to face multi-faceted reality head-on.
For Singaporeans of different backgrounds, the key should not be whether national consciousness is proclaimed verbally, but rather seeking understanding, giving each other support and encouragement, and working together to move forward.
(In English): Finally, the health of our governance institutions, as a reminder of what we must do to set us on a path for an even brighter tomorrow.
Singapore is safe, stable and in many ways, successful. But as the saying goes, \"past performance is not a guarantee of future success\". It is timely to ask if we have the right governance processes to safeguard these outcomes in the long term.
In a changing world, we keep emphasising the need for institutional safeguards, such as ombudsmans, Select Committees, entrenching the independence of the Elections Department, not to check a box or just because it is an abstract concept we deem important. We do so because these are real important mechanisms for any nation to ensure that its future stability and gains are protected for many generations to come.
Institutional safeguards also come in a form of oversight in a way our public bodies and public service operate, a clearer perceived neutrality of institutions, like the People's Association, to ensure public resources are not enmeshed with political goals, even in the way we allow the media an independent voice, voices to thrive without the shadow of the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) overreach.
These are important foundational pillars to ensure that the excesses of no individual person or party can undo the successes we are proud of and that we will get policies right more often than we will get them wrong.
They are not perfect, but they are designed to hold back the worst excesses, even when politics get heated. We need to ensure our guardrails are robust. We are also working to hope our politics never gets to that point of needing it, because no country, not even Singapore, is immune to shocks, to mistakes, or to excesses and we must design processes to ensure continuity and resilience
To close, I also believe that the Government has a clear mandate with much political capital to spare in order to allow longer-term policies. But many Singaporeans would join my party colleagues and I thinking that the sign of a truly healthy Singapore is one where the colours worn by an elected MP should not matter when we work within the community.
I wish the new Government all the best and success for delivering for Singapore because that is good for all of us. For while we may disagree on approaches, policies, implementation of economic strategies, the one thing that truly unites all of us here is the staunch belief that we will see Singapore succeed. And for that, all of us here in this House should hold our heads high as we work for the betterment of Singapore, for the safety and the future of those whom we love, more than love itself.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Acting Minister Jeffrey Siow.
The Acting Minister for Transport and Senior Minister of State for Finance (Mr Jeffrey Siow): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion. It is my honour to stand here for the first time in this House and I want to first thank the voters of Chua Chu Kang group representation constituency (GRC) for the opportunity to represent them in this 15th Parliament.
Since joining politics, my life has changed in different ways. I have learnt how to sleep less. My daughter has observed that my eyebags have their own eyebags. I have less time to play football with my friends on Sundays. And even when I do, I am the most polite of players. When I get kicked on the back of the leg, I am the first to say, \"Sorry, sorry\".
Life is different now, but my family keeps me going. So, I want to start by thanking all of them: my wife, my brother, my kids and my mother, who even comes to volunteer with me at my MPS. My family makes me feel that I am part of a team.
I have always believed in the power of a team. In my public service career, I have changed roles every three to five years. So, often, I had to learn a new job from scratch. And so, I could never assume I had all the answers and therefore, my approach has always been to lean on the strengths of those in my team – so that together, we are more than the sum of the individual parts.
As a political leader, my role is to make decisions on behalf of people. My approach is to be inclusive, to create space for voices to be heard and to build trust. This way, even issues that are divisive can be opportunities to build bridges.
As Transport Minister, I have the chance to put this philosophy into practice. As you can expect, people give me feedback all the time.
And this is a privilege because, actually, they are telling me their stories and every story is personal – the young couple who wants to buy a car, but finds it out of reach; a single mother who uses her personal mobility scooter to bring her three kids to preschool, even though she knows it is illegal; an office worker who ran in the rain, to catch her bus, but she just missed it; and a father splurging on a private car ride, so that he can get home in time to see his children before they go to bed.
Hearing these stories, I understand why some people feel that the system is sometimes not working for them. They feel the hard edge of the policy. They feel they are on the wrong side of the line.
I would solve every one of these individual problems, if I could, because these are not just matters of efficiency. These are matters of fairness and of dignity.
But in a compact country like ours, transport needs necessarily collide. Pedestrians and cyclists share the same pavement. Cyclists and drivers share the same road. Everyone wants a bus stop just below their homes, but no one wants a bus that stops every 20 metres.
In transport, trade-offs are unavoidable and yet, they are felt deeply and personally. And that is why it does not just matter what we do. It matters how we do it, and how we bring people along. And that is why my approach to policies will be to explain our considerations openly and honestly. What we give up, what we gain and why.
Here, I have found that a personal touch really matters. It really makes a difference. A face-to-face meeting, a phone call, or a personal email that I write myself. Most Singaporeans, when I engage them this way, they are reasonable and fair, even when they disagree with the decision.
Over time, I hope to win more people's trust. I know trust is won over time, with consistency of action and purpose. I must show that our processes are fair and my intentions are right. So, my approach is to be open and transparent, and thus, I welcome the Leader of Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh's earlier comments about how the WP will scrutinise the work of the Ministry of Transport (MOT) and the Rail Reliability Taskforce. In fact, I will welcome questions from all of us here in this Chamber because good questions are not the sole province of the opposition, but is the responsibility of all of us. This openness will help me build trust and with trust, the toughest compromises become possible.
I have learnt this lesson as a young public officer. I was at MOT earlier, working on the Cross Island Line, a very important MRT Line, especially for the Northeast sector. On one side, engineers and policy-makers wanted the most direct route to keep travel times short and costs down. And the most direct route was under the Central Catchment Nature Reserve. But nature groups feared that the soil investigation drilling would harm the fragile ecosystem of the nature reserve. And so, they amassed in opposition and they pushed back. Arguments were heated. The project was delayed. But the important thing was both sides continued showing up and this gave us the time to hear each other out.
In the end, nobody got everything that they wanted. But together, we found better ways forward. LTA adopted more innovative and less invasive methods. But most importantly, we built trust and as trust grew, stronger solutions for Singapore emerged. When I returned to MOT a few months ago, my nature group combatants, turned comrades, were the first to welcome me back, as friends.
That experience has guided me since then – that trust can be built even when disagreements cut deep but only if we all commit to staying at the table, with the right heart and the right intent.
And that is the spirit I want to bring to shape our transport future. In the next few weeks, the LTA will launch consultations for the next iterations of the Land Transport Masterplan. We want to engage more Singaporeans than ever before – commuters, drivers, cyclists, seniors, persons with disabilities, mobility device users. We want to bring all of them together to have deeper conversations and to weigh trade-offs. My hope is simple: that more Singaporeans feel that the system works for them and that their story matters.
Building common ground helps us balance today's needs but it does not solve tomorrow's problems. To ease the pressures of zero-sum choices, we must create new ground – new choices, new capacity, new options and possibilities.
For example, 15 years ago, we did not have private hire cars. We only had taxis. The older ones amongst us will remember that it was almost impossible to get a taxi on a Friday night or on a rainy day. Then, Uber and Grab arrived. With more cars and flexible fares, more Singaporeans could access door-to-door transport, on a pay per use basis, rather than having to drive or to use or to purchase a car. Initially, taxi drivers feared that private hire cars would undercut them. But in fact, both sets of drivers benefited from more business and higher earnings
If back then, the Government had blocked the entry of Uber and Grab, we would all have been worse off. But we took the long-term view, and everyone benefited.
And that is why we are now looking to bring in autonomous vehicles (AVs) because AVs will add a new option to move Singaporeans around. Imagine a safe ride home, after a late night out; imagine a doorstep pick-up, to the polyclinic for your medical check-up; imagine doing emails or listening to a podcast in a car, without having to drive; imagine new and exciting jobs for our people, especially our young.
New possibilities open up when we focus on creation, rather than division.
In sea and air transport, we have done the same. We dreamt up possibilities that did not exist before, like the world's largest automated port, like our now-iconic Jewel. With Tuas Port and Changi Terminal 5, we are once again building boldly, creating the capacity for decades to come.
We are summoning the same spirit of creation for our economy. Deputy Prime Minister Gan spoke about the Economic Strategy Review.
I co-chair the Committee on Global Competitiveness with Senior Minister of State Low Yen Ling. Our Committee comprises a new generation of Singaporean business leaders, who know what it takes to survive and to thrive in today's world. All of us share a deep sense of urgency. We see how the world may be moving against us.
For decades, Singapore benefited from globalisation and free trade. But as the President explained in his address and as Deputy Prime Minister has explained in his speech, the rules have shifted. Larger economies are raising tariffs and subsidising their core industrial champions. As a small country, we cannot match them dollar-for-dollar, land-for-land. This is a big risk, but it is also an opportunity to retool, to move into spaces where others hesitate, to attract new industries for Singapore and create new jobs for Singaporeans.
And we have done this before. We joined up seven islands to create Jurong Island, to build a petrochemical hub. We invested in semi-conductors when others felt that we could succeed. We grew our biomedical industry from washing test tubes to producing vaccines. And we even built a world-class integrated resort, on land reclaimed from the sea.
These were not just about maintaining the status quo. These were acts of creation. And now, it is time for us to do it again. Our ambition is to be an enterprise hub, where companies are born, grow and scale to the world to become champions.
We will place bigger bets on the industries of the future – advanced materials, robotics, precision medicine, space. These bets may feel uncomfortable. Not everything will succeed but if just one, two or three of these bets come good, they will transform our economy and carry Singapore to the next level.
Industries are only part of the story. What matters most is whether Singaporeans can step into these new opportunities that we create. With a faster pace of economic change, people will have more career transitions. Fewer people will climb a single career ladder like I did, almost did. Most will have multiple jobs, move across many jobs and industries across their lifetimes.
Career transitions can be unsettling if faced alone. But in Singapore, no one should feel alone. We only have 3.6 million Singaporeans, so we can help every person reskill and reinvent themselves to unlock each person's potential, again and again, to bring out the best in every one of us, as the world changes.
Of course, a career change can feel daunting. It can feel emotional. It can feel vulnerable. In these moments, a word of encouragement, a gesture of care can make all the difference.
I experienced this myself. When I decided to join politics, I felt unsettled, too. I was a civil servant and I did not know how I would fare under public scrutiny and politics was a whole new ballgame.
In April, I had to make my first political speech. I remember rehearsing in a corner, slightly nervously. Then-Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean walked by. We did not know each other very well before, but he came over, he placed his hands on my shoulders and said, \"As long as you are doing the right thing, do not worry about what other people say.\"
His words made all the difference to me that day. It gave me the strength to step forward and to speak like a lion.
To unlock the full potential of Singaporeans, we must support one another. We are one team. Encourage others instead of criticising them. When friends and family try new things, celebrate them. When they make mistakes, help them. Treat others' success as if they were our own. Because when one of us rises, all of us rise together.
Mr Speaker, this is who I am. Someone who believes in unity without uniformity. Someone who wants to create what has yet to be imagined. Someone who believes that we achieve more when we work together.
At the heart of my team today is our transport workers: rail maintenance workers working in the dead of night, our bus captains working split shifts, frontline customer service officers who maintain their composure even under public pressure, private hire car drivers trying to make ends meet, all of them are part of my team. I am responsible for them. They keep our system going. They will always have my support and I hope they will have yours, too.
Not long ago, I read a letter that was published in the Lianhe Zaobao. It was titled \"请把父亲还给我\", or please return my father to me. It was written by a young woman whose father had been a bus captain for 20 years. She wrote about the long hours that her father worked, often on the hardest shifts. When she asked him if work was more important than family, he replied, \"The company needs me. I have to do it.\" At the end of her letter, she wrote, \"家庭，才是人生最不该错过的末班车\". Family is the last bus in life that we must never miss.
That story moved me. It reminded me of my own relationship with my father. He, too, worked long hours in a coffee shop. Growing up, I wished for his presence even though I understood his absence.
Now, I find myself feeling the same tensions. Some evenings, my children would see me heading out. They would ask, \"Where are you going, Daddy?\" I wonder in those moments, if I am giving them enough. They are teenagers now. They do not need me to tuck them into bed anymore. But they still need me to listen, to be present and to show up.
I feel a tinge in my heart, but I know that my work matters. I am helping to build the country that we all share, where people can get home on time for dinner with their families, where a daughter can see her bus captain dad because we support the people who keep our country running.
Our country will never be perfect. But it can be one that we are all proud of. That is why I will keep going for every Singaporean, for a Singapore where no one walks alone. The way forward is together, with our families, our friends and as one nation, because the meaningful things in life cannot be done alone. [Applause.]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Kenneth Tiong, do you have a clarification?
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): I thank Deputy Prime Minister Gan for his speech. I have three clarifications.
First, the Deputy Prime Minister said there was a 5% above-trend growth scenario, which was going to be driven by high-growth sectors. What is the composition of reskilled labour and new labour input? If the Deputy Prime Minister has those assumptions driving the model?
My second question is, there has been an increasing number of AI labs setting up here, like Mistral and Google. I understand that they have been accorded incentives. What are the report cards for these incentives accorded to them?
The third question, given that both Ministers have mentioned space, is that I noticed there is no space agency here. I would like to ask if that is in the works.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Are those your three clarifications to one of the Ministers and no more clarifications? Alright. Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: I thought that there were no more clarifications, I almost left. Anyway, I am glad to have the questions.
First, let me explain that the potential high growth industries will also involve the training and upskilling of workers. I have mentioned in my speech. This will involve programmes that we will put in place, including SkillsFuture programmes as well as the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme.
Exactly what skills we will need is something that we will have to work through with the industries that we are promoting. When we bring in the industries, they will need new skills, new workers. Existing workers have to be upskilled, have to be retrained. This is something that we have to also prepare ahead of time. Even as we negotiate and discuss with new industries coming in, we will already start talking about the type of workers that they need, the type of skills that they need.
Some of the industries that we bring in may already exist in Singapore. They may be upgrading their production, upgrading their operations, moving into higher value-added activities. In that case, they may also need to upgrade their workers who are already in their companies.
It is a combination of new workers and existing workers upgrading, new skills. This will be an entire transformation that we will need to go through. It is part and parcel of our tripartite efforts. We work with companies, we work with our trade unions, our worker representatives to see how we can support their skills upgrading and retraining journey.
The Member has asked about AI labs, yes, we have set up quite a lot of AI initiatives at different levels. First, at the broad level, we would like to encourage companies to embrace AI technology so that their workers at all levels are familiar with the use of AI and confident in using AI-enabled tools going forward. So, this is a very broad baseline.
It is a little bit like digitalisation previously, where we wanted to encourage all our workers to be digitally ready so that they are comfortable with using digital tools. Similarly for AI, at the first level, we want to have a broad adoption and acceptance of AI technology and skills.
At the second level, within the companies, for companies that are bigger, we want to encourage them to invest in building up AI capability within the company. These are what we call company-based AI centres of excellence. We support them, we encourage them, we help them, we give them grants so that they are able to build up their AI capability.
These are in the beginning stage. They will take some time for them to be able to familiarise with and to be able to be confident in building up their AI centres of excellence.
At the third level, there are also a lot of companies that are much smaller. They do not have the confidence to be able to build company-based AI centres of excellence. So, they want to be able to tap on some national platforms.
That is why we also have national, sectoral-based AI centres of excellence. One example is in manufacturing, which we have already set up. We make that facility available to manufacturing companies, to tap on this capacity so that they can build their AI capability. Once they are familiar and confident, if they want to build our own company-based AI centre of excellence, they can do so, as and when they are ready.
So, we adopt a multipronged approach in building AI capability in Singapore.
You mentioned space. Indeed, we do have a space office. It is called OSTIn, Office for Space Technology and Industry. This is an agency that oversees the development of space technology. This is an area that we have an interest in because with the emergence of communication requirements, especially with 5G technology, low-orbit communication has become a very important sector that we want to grow. That is why we are also focusing on developing our space industry in Singapore.
But it is still early days. We do want to explore the different possibilities and opportunities in space technology.
Mr Deputy Speaker: No further clarifications, Mr Tiong? Minister of State Dinesh Vasu Dash.
The Minister of State for Culture, Community and Youth, and Manpower (Mr Dinesh Vasu Dash): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion to thank our President for his address. Before I proceed, may I please be allowed to say a few words in Tamil?
(In Tamil): Hon Deputy Speaker, and Members of this House, greetings. My father would often tell me how when my grandfather came from India to Singapore, what he had with him was only hope and hard work. He worked as a contractor who engages construction workers. It was hard work; but he never once complained. The explanation he gave my father was: \"I work hard today so that tomorrow, you can live well.\"
This story is not just the story of my family alone. It is the story of countless Indian forefathers too. They came as labourers, traders, and teachers. They endured hardship. Yet, at the same time, they also grew their families. They established schools, temples, mosques, churches and community organisations. All these have stood the test of time till today. It is their sacrifices then, that has uplifted our generations today.
In recent times, new Indian immigrants have come to Singapore. Many of them have come here to study or work. As days went, they did not return home and made Singapore their permanent home. Their aspirations are similar to our pioneers – good family, sufficient income and commitment to the country.
Today, the Indian community is diverse. We are Tamils, Punjabis, Gujaratis, Malayalees, Telugus, Sindhis and many others. We are Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs. But above these- we are Singaporeans! And this is why I stand here today, not only as a representative of the Indian community, but as a part of the Singapore community.
Our community’s progress is not apart from the country’s progress. It is a part of it. That is what Mr S Rajaratnam, who brought glory to the Indian community and the country, emphasised. He has said, any one community should not preserve its own traditions alone, but create a united Singapore. These words are solemn to us.
These words are especially important, given how the world is divided by language, race and religion. Singapore’s’ strength lies in the unity that we find amidst our differences. For this unity, every community must make its contributions.
When our youths excel in education, when our seniors are fine, when our families are prosperous – this is not just a community’s achievement; it is Singapore’s victory.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
As I embark my journey in this House, I hold the stories of our forefathers, the hopes of Singaporeans and new immigrants and the words of leaders such as Mr Rajaratnam in my heart. Let us continue to build a strong and prosperous society. May excellent Singapore excel onward.
(In English): Mr Speaker, we live in uncertain and fractious times. We face a shifting global order, the real impact of climate change and the lingering aftershocks of a once-in-a-generation pandemic. The world today feels more volatile, polarised and far more anxious than before.
We are facing profound challenges within Singapore too – a rapidly ageing society, the rise in technology, potentially displacing jobs and greater individualism. We are also not immune to the global trends and impact of rising populism and protectionism.
However, this is not the first time Singapore had seen trouble. Our founding generation faced severe, existential concerns, yet both the Government and people worked together to defy all odds and transform Singapore.
My generation was born after the trauma of Separation, but we had our challenges too. While there was palpable economic growth, there were uncertainties, economic crises and we did not take anything for granted. Like many families then, my brother and I were taught to treasure what little we had and to always care for those who needed help. This had been the ethos of the Singapore story.
We had our crises too. When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, I saw first-hand how the leadership worked hand in hand with our people to save lives and livelihoods. I consider it an honour to have served Singapore during the pandemic and to have the voice of the underprivileged be represented as I served, solved problems and pushed boundaries.
Today's generation faces different challenges and a different lived experience. In fact, in my conversations with young Singaporeans, I hear both optimism and unease. They believe in Singapore, but they want their voices to be heard. And they want to know that this country will work for them even as the world changes. This will therefore be my first area of focus: our youths.
Understandably, their points of reference are different from ours, where development exists, systems work but there are expectations for them to work better. While there are more opportunities both locally and overseas, our youths are apprehensive about their type of jobs, their families, their future and about global justice, climate change and the environment.
To them, I say, \"Your voice matters. My colleagues and I are committed to listening to you to understand your concerns and to work with you to fulfil your dreams\".
This generation understands different pathways to success and has what it takes to overcome the hurdles that life throws at them.
Take, for example, Mr Wong Kah Chun. While performing for the SAF military band during his National Service, he suffered a nerve injury. During his recovery, he discovered his talent in being a composer and a conductor. After receiving the Lee Kuan Yew scholarship and scoring the first prize at the Gustav Mahler Conducting Competition, Kah Chun had many notable appearances such as being appointed as chief conductor to Germany's Nuremberg Symphony Orchestra and the Japan Philharmonic Orchestra.
Last year, he was appointed the principal conductor and artistic adviser of The Hallee, a 165-year-old symphony orchestra based in Manchester in the United Kingdom. This year, he made history as the first Singaporean to conduct at the BBC Promenade Concerts, the world famous classical music festival held annually in London.
Kah Chun had blazed the trail and had shown young Singaporeans that it is possible to carve out meaningful careers even in less conventional fields. When I asked him for his message to younger Singaporeans, he said, \"Dream boldly, work with discipline and always remember that our heritage can be the source of our greatest creativity.\"
These are very profound words from a Singaporean youth that we are all very proud of.
However, there are anxieties on the availability of jobs and potential displacements due to technology as well as global economic shifts. To this, I would say, \"Do not despair. My colleagues and I at MOM will do whatever we can to help to be a bridge for you and to help to connect you to jobs, assess your career health, highlight industries that are growing and to help you acquire the skills needed for roles in these sectors\".
Further, in my capacity as the co-chair of the Economic Strategy Review Committee on Entrepreneurship, I hope to be able to provide new opportunities to help fulfil your aspirations. My fellow co-chair Minister of State Alvin Tan and I are determined to create a bustling culture of entrepreneurship where our youths would be able to fulfil personal aspirations and in the process, solidify Singapore's place as an entrepreneurship hub. This is another clear reflection of how the Government works with all Singaporeans to provide for better, more prosperous futures by connecting them to jobs.
While we secure the futures of our young, we must continue to value and respect those who had built Singapore, past and present. This brings me to my second area of focus: our seniors.
Singapore has been designated as a Blue Zone 2.0 country as our residents have exceptionally long life expectancies. Singapore's longevity is attributed to an engineered environment, which is almost exclusively based on Government policies, urban planning and a population that is generally health conscious.
We are expected to be super aged by the year 2026. One in four residents will be above the age of 65 by 2030. In fact, in my constituency in Bedok and Siglap, one in four residents are already above the age of 65. We are five years ahead of schedule. If I were to expand the age bracket to those who are above 60, 32% or almost one third of my residents would qualify.
Many of our seniors are fit and active and have much to contribute to our nation, including our workforce. We should provide as many opportunities as possible, especially for those who are willing and able to work.
The Ministry of Health's (MOH's) Healthier SG and Age Well SG have been significant programmes that have the potential to change the ageing landscape in Singapore. With the speed and comprehensive nature of the rollout of both initiatives, particularly Age Well SG, residents of HDB towns would benefit tremendously from such programmes. Given the sheer number of seniors among us, it would be useful to expand the programme, which includes social gatherings, exercise and therapy sessions, to include private estates as well.
Unfortunately, not all of us will be able to age gracefully. Some of us might unfortunately be affected by illnesses and disease. This might be so despite our best efforts in taking care of ourselves and living wisely.
My wife's grandmother was one such person. Suffering from a severe mental illness for many years, I could see the psychological toll it took on her entire family. Nevertheless, my in-laws took it in their stride and did their duty, always with a warm, loving smile until her last days.
I believe more can be done to support our seniors like my wife's grandmother and their families. I wish to continue to push for initiatives both at the policy and implementation levels and to be a voice for our seniors to live dignified lives.
My third area of focus will be on protecting the vulnerable. One of our key policy pillars had been that families and society formed the basic safety nets for individuals with disabilities. However, with competing demands, reducing family sizes and Singapore's economic development, it is not unreasonable for there to be an expectation for the state to do slightly more – not for the Government to be the sole safety net but to play a stronger role.
For those who may be able to work, we should be giving them a fair wage for their efforts. MOM had been rolling out the Progressive Wage Model (PWM). Most recently, I announced the PWM for the retail sector.
The PWM is the Government's way of ensuring that the most vulnerable among our workers are protected and that their salaries are increased in tandem to cope with the cost of living. To complement the Government's efforts, businesses must also continue to restructure themselves and workers must acquire new skills to remain employable.
We must not forget our migrant workers, who take on much of the toil that Singaporeans prefer not to do. Our buildings and infrastructure are built on their blood, sweat and tears. As if their daily contributions are not enough, they occasionally transform into superheroes to save Singaporeans in need.
In my capacity at MOM, I have had the pleasure of working closely with our migrant workers and hope that Singaporeans will continue to open their hearts to them and to support them, not only when they perform heroic acts from time to time.
Speaking of daily superheroes, the demands on caregivers, particularly those taking care of physically or intellectually disabled people, can be time consuming and both emotionally and financially draining. I do think more should be done to support our caregivers.
I was therefore happy to inaugurate the Enabling Services Hub at Block 28 at New Upper Changi Road, which was a ground up initiative between my grassroots, SG Enable and like-minded partners. Together, the hub aims to provide services for those with intellectual and physical disabilities and for our caregivers to have a reprieve from their daily responsibilities.
Take, for example, Mdm Wendy Goh, who had been making four trips every week for her 21-year-old daughter, Nicole Chew, who has an intellectual disability, from their home in Bedok to Tampines. As we can imagine, this was difficult and draining. Now, with the Enabling Services Hub at Block 28, Nicole can join inclusive activities that would help her learn, grow and connect with others in the community closer to home.
Ultimately, Singaporeans facing physical or mental disabilities together with their families deserve to live fulfilling lives. I will do my best to ensure that no one is left behind.
The uncertainties in the world are likely to continue. There could be pressures on our resolve and unity. Some may draw comparisons between the haves and the have-nots. Others may turn nativist, trying to draw the distinction between second- or third-generation with first-generation Singaporeans.
During such times, we should strengthen our resolve and fall back on our values. We have always celebrated ground up initiatives based on self reliance and a strong work ethic, just like my in-laws. Hence, wanting to be a \"we first\" society does not mean that we were wholly individualistic previously.
Indeed, we celebrate and strengthen ourselves to be one united Singapore, a Singapore where our vulnerable are able to live dignified lives, a Singapore where everyone is respected, a Singapore where individual contributions are honoured and cherished regardless of age, and a Singapore where our youth would continue to have a bright future. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to join the debate. Sir, I stand in support of the Motion.
I would like to thank Mr President for laying out the key priorities for this new term of Government. I agree with Mr President that our nation’s success must never be measured by economic growth alone. It must be judged by how we support the vulnerable and how we enable every Singaporean to contribute and to live with dignity.
As we begin the 15th Parliament, it is timely to reflect on how far we have come in uplifting our lower-wage workers, and more importantly, the work that still lies ahead. Over the last decade, we have made significant strides in improving the wages, welfare and work conditions of our lower-wage workers. Between 2019 and 2024, the real wages of workers at the 20th percentile grew by 5.9% – outpacing the 3.6% growth for the median worker. This shows that our policies are lifting those at the lower end of the wage ladder.
Some ask why Singapore has not adopted a universal minimum wage. The answer lies in the strength of our PWM. Unlike a single wage floor applied across the board, PWM is tailored to specific sectors, covers over 40 job roles today and enables workers to progress through skills and productivity. Today, more than 155,000 workers across nine sectors and occupations are covered by PWM.
Take the cleaning sector. A decade ago, a general office cleaner earned about $600. Today, the entry wage is at least $1,910. Workers like Azizah Abdul Majeed, a single mother who upgraded herself from part-time cleaner to team leader, show how PWM creates dignity, career progression and better livelihoods.
In the security sector, the basic monthly wage of an entry-level security officer was about $1,100 in 2016. From 1 January 2025, that basic wage rose to at least $2,870 and by 2028, it will further increase to about $3,530. Many security officers are now running digital systems and handling crowd-control duties – roles now seen as skilled professions.
Just as important are the personal stories behind these numbers. One example is Sivamani Taigrajan, whose father once worked long hours as a security guard to support the family. Today, as a Security Supervisor, she leads a command centre, embraces new technology and inspires others to join the industry. More than higher pay, she now has pride and purpose in a profession that has been transformed by PWM.
At the national level, inequality has narrowed. The Gini coefficient has fallen from 0.464 in 2014 to 0.435 in 2024. This is before transfers and taxes. If we take into account both transfers and taxes, the Gini coefficient drops further to 0.364.
Sir, these achievements were not overnight. They were built on strong tripartite trust and tough negotiations. In 2021, the Tripartite Workgroup on Lower-Wage Workers put forth 18 recommendations. I am glad to know that by working together, by July 2023, all 18 recommendations were implemented. Each year, the National Wages Council, another tripartite platform, continues to issue guidelines with a strong focus on uplifting our lower-wage workers.
While progress has been made, the journey is far from complete. Inflation continues to weigh heavily. NTUC’s June 2025 Survey showed that lower-income households are most worried about the rising costs of food, groceries and healthcare. Many are also supporting both young children and elderly parents. Workers know upskilling is key but often struggle to identify relevant training or meaningful career opportunities. I had spoken about this before, in this house, highlighting the two common questions that workers have: train what? Train for what?
Long working hours remain an issue. In security, officers still work 12-hour shifts, six days a week. Higher wages cannot come at the expense of health, well-being and family life. The talent pipelines remain thin. Younger Singaporeans are not joining PWM sectors in sufficient numbers, raising concerns about long-term sustainability for the service providers. Implementation challenges also persist. PWM wage negotiations are becoming tougher in today’s economic climate and close monitoring is needed to prevent uneven application or cost-shifting. These challenges make it even more critical that our tripartite partners stand firm in upholding fair and sustainable outcomes for our workers.
Amidst these challenges, NTUC and our unions will continue to work hard to ensure that wages keep pace and workers are not left behind. Beyond wages, our unions play a hands-on role: negotiating fairer workplace conditions, supporting upskilling and providing aid through our NTUC U Care Fund for members and their families facing financial stress. But our mission is far from complete. Income at the 20th percentile is about 55% of median income – short of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) benchmark of two-thirds.
To close this gap, NTUC believes it is timely to convene a refreshed Tripartite Workgroup on Lower-Wage Workers to chart the next bound of progress. This group must be bold, ambitious, and focused on both wages and sustained career progression.
NTUC will also seek to broaden and deepen the impact of the PWM in two key areas. First, by placing stronger emphasis on productivity as the enabler of sustainable wage growth. For example, 800 Super Waste Management, they work with the Built Environment and Urban Trades Employees’ Union (BATU), deployed AI-enabled recycling bins under a Company Training Committee framework. This boosted productivity, reduced contamination and more importantly, enabled higher-value jobs with a 5% pay increase for 100 workers.
Second, by expanding PWM into more sectors. One area that I have raised before is Pest Management, an essential service in public health but still plagued by low wages and high attrition. A PWM here would create structured career and wage ladders, strengthening both livelihoods and the resilience of the sector.
Beyond PWM, the Local Qualifying Salary (LQS) ensures that firms hiring foreign manpower also uplift local wages. The last increase brought the threshold to $1,600 in July 2024. NTUC calls on the Government to further raise the LQS in this term of Government to narrow the gap between lower-wage and median workers. At the same time, NTUC recognises that some workers may need more help. Through the NTUC U Care Fund, we will continue to support vulnerable families and those hit by sudden hardship.
NTUC’s enterprises also play a part. The FairPrice Group, for example, continues to keep essentials affordable, helping families cope even as wages rise. The Labour Movement has, and will continue to, do our part in helping to nurture a “we first” society at every level. Mr Speaker, allow me to speak a few words in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): Over the past decade, the PWM has become an important cornerstone of our tripartite cooperation. We can see that income inequality in our country has narrowed, which proves that our policies to raise the wages of low-income workers are indeed effective.
Behind these numbers are the real workers and families: the cleaning uncle supporting his family's needs, the security officer spending more time with his family or the pest management worker seeking career development and recognition. NTUC will continue to walk the journey with low wage workers, working hand-in-hand with the Government, employers and the wider community to build a fairer and more inclusive Singapore.
For the new term of this Government, I urge the Government to continue pressing forward boldly. First, further expand the coverage of the PWMs. Second, raise the threshold for Local Qualifying Salary (LQS). Third, strengthen support for training and upscaling. Only in this way can we further narrow the income gap, drive sustained wage growth and enable every worker to progress with dignity.
(In English): Sir, over the past decade, PWM has become a cornerstone of our labour compact. Government data has shown that wages for those at the 20th percentile has risen higher than the median. And consequently, income inequality has narrowed. More importantly, behind these numbers are real workers and real families: the cleaner supporting his children’s education, the security officer spending more time with his family, or the pest management worker seeking career recognition.
NTUC remains firmly committed to walking this journey with our workers. Together with our tripartite partners and the wider community, we will continue to build a fairer, more inclusive Singapore, where no worker is left behind. As we embark on this new term, I urge the Government to press on boldly with Progressive Wage expansion, further raise the LQS and strengthen support for training and upskilling. These moves are essential to close the income gap, secure sustainable wage growth and uphold our shared vision of a society where every worker can progress with dignity – because at NTUC, we firmly believe that Every Worker Matters. [Applause.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Leader.
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I wish to move to extend the proceedings beyond the moment of interruption. For the benefit of new Members, proceedings in Parliament end automatically at 7.00 pm unless extended by the Speaker or moved to be extended by myself.
Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move a Motion to take the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today beyond the moment of interruption?
Mr Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Leader have the general assent of hon Members to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, that the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be proceeded with beyond the moment of interruption. – [Ms Indranee Rajah] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"President's Speech","subTitle":"Debate on Address of Thanks – first allotted day","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Fadli Fawzi.
Mr Fadli Fawzi (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, in the President's Address, Mr Tharman relayed the Government’s vision of a \"we first\" society where Singaporeans would \"put the collective before the self\", or the \"we\" before the \"me\". This reiterates the Prime Minister's message in his National Day Rally about the importance of \"feeling that we are all in this together and not just looking out for our own self-interest\".
Sir, we know Singaporeans are not selfish people. Our citizens do not only care for their self-interest. Time and again, Singaporeans have demonstrated their public-spirited and civic-minded character. Our communities have robust and longstanding traditions of acting in solidarity for the sake of the collective interest.
I am sure the House is familiar with the term \"gotong royong\". Many older Malays, especially those who lived in kampungs, may fondly remember participating in a rewang for a kenduri, where extended relatives and even neighbours would come to help the host family prepare for a wedding.
We can also look at how the Chinese community rallied together to establish the old Nanyang University. Nantah was a monumental achievement of collective sacrifice and solidarity. I want to recount the words of Han Suyin from her autobiography \"My House Has Two Doors\", where she described the collective founding of Nantah.
She wrote, \"How many oyster omelettes, sliced crab, noodles of all kinds went into Nanyang University? The trishaw pedallers of Singapore and Malaya pedaled for three days and turned it all in for Nanyang University, and theirs was the greatest sacrifice, for they were so very poor.\"
She goes on to say, \"Rubber tappers flocked to give; they know that their children would never have a chance to go to university, but it was a gesture of cultural identity. It was incredible and magnificent, and it must be remembered.\"
More importantly, our sense of generosity and solidarity extends cross-communally. The Straits Times reported on 27 June that the Singaporean public raised more than $2.4 million in aid for Gaza. I was especially heartened to learn that our local temples were among the many donors to the cause.
Mr Speaker, I hope my point here is clear: Singaporeans have always been willing to work for the common good. Singaporeans do care about others and we are able to see beyond our own personal interests. In fact, our success in nation-building is a testament to our citizens working together for the public well-being.
Sir, the President spoke of a \"we first\" society where \"success is not measured only by personal achievement, but by what we do together for the common good.\" But why do Singaporeans now appear to be more concerned about their personal achievements over the common good?
I want to raise two possible factors. The first relates to the unintended consequences of meritocracy. The second is the growing sense of precariousness that many Singaporeans feel. Mr Speaker, allow me to elaborate on these in Malay.
(In Malay): Our emphasis on meritocracy is meant to ensure that talent is appropriately rewarded and to encourage social mobility on the basis of achievement, rather than affiliation, and capability, rather than connection. In practice, however, there is a tension within meritocracy between its \"elitist and egalitarian strands,\" as Prof Kenneth Paul Tan once noted in his article \"Meritocracy and Elitism in a Global City\".
Prof Tan explained that meritocracy appears fair since it supposedly applies a \"principle of non-discrimination\". He also warned that meritocracy can be a practice that conceals the real advantages and disadvantages that are unevenly distributed to different segments and perpetuates inequality in an unequal society.
Meritocracy, when taken to an extreme, can promote the wrong impression: that those who succeed mistakenly believe that their success was achieved solely because they worked hard. Meanwhile, those who are left behind are assumed to deserve being left behind because they have not worked hard enough.
This demonstrates how meritocracy can be turned into an \"ideology\", as described by Syed Hussein Alatas in his book \"The Myth of the Lazy Native\". As an ideology, meritocracy is not just a mechanism to identify and sort talent, but it also becomes a belief to justify and explain away inequality and the lot of those left behind.
Such a belief can be corrosive to a \"we first\" society because it suggests that those who are struggling deserve to be struggling. It creates the impression that the poor and the disadvantaged should suffer what they must since they are not hardworking enough, or not smart enough, or not capable enough.
It is also difficult to foster a \"we first\" society when the ethos of meritocracy tends to contribute to a narrative of \"winners\" and \"losers\". When we find ourselves always trying to stay ahead and avoid losing out, it is not surprising that we become more concerned about personal achievement rather than the common good.
This brings me to my point about precariousness. Many Singaporeans live with a sense of precariousness. This is especially acute among the lower-income segments of the population. Many are feeling squeezed by the rising costs of living. In fact, some of our professionals, in order to support their families, even have to work a second job as a Grab driver in the evenings and weekends. Meanwhile, our local entrepreneurs also find themselves increasingly priced out by rental hikes.
Sir, this is the reality for many Singaporeans. They feel as though their lives are precarious, their futures and their children's futures are deeply uncertain, and they worry that everything they have worked hard for could be lost with just one unfortunate mistake or accident.
(In English): Mr Speaker, I just explained that when we uncritically idealise meritocracy, we risk blaming the disadvantaged for their plight and lauding the successful for their fortune. We cripple our own willingness to aid those who live paycheck to paycheck, those who are, today, condemned to an increasingly precarious existence.
I make the point about precariousness to highlight how difficult it is to think about the \"we\", when the \"me\" is valiantly struggling to make ends meet and eke out a living. Sir, it is unreasonable to expect our people to think \"we first\" without first addressing how many of our citizens feel that they are already overworked and over-burdened.
Sir, I wish to offer my own thoughts about a \"we first\" society. The House should not just exhort our citizens to do more, but also call on the Government to take the lead in ensuring that all Singaporeans can pursue a dignified life.
Moreover, I believe that when each and every person is afforded with dignity, it can lead to a more civic and public-minded behaviour. What do I mean by dignity? It means that no matter their background and no matter their lot in life, every Singaporean must be able to contribute to society and receive support from society. Importantly, this means that those who are falling behind or may need additional help are regarded with respect and their needs properly accommodated, instead of being treated as a burden on others.
On this occasion, Sir, I want to focus on dignity as it relates to our elderly. It is unconscionable that some of them remain classed among the working poor, having to make a living through menial jobs, even in their 60s and 70s. Every Member of this House would have met the cleaners, delivery workers and hawker stall assistants in their constituencies who are forced to persist in gruelling labour, despite their advanced age and sometimes, in spite of health issues.
Some of them might even find themselves having to live in rental homes with other strangers. Even as I admire their resilience and work ethic, I am sure that we can do better for our elderly. This House would surely agree that being forced into this situation is not a dignified way of living out one's golden years. We all want the best for our elderly.
More importantly, we do not resent or begrudge them as they develop more needs as they grow older. Rather, we recognise that it is a matter of their dignity that we do our best to accommodate those needs. The Government has, indeed, moved in this direction of better supporting our elderly, including increasing its healthcare expenditure from $10 billion in 2019 to $20.9 billion in 2025.
However, a \"we first\" society, especially one as wealthy as ours, must also attend to our elderly's post-material needs to enable them to pursue a life of dignity. To live your golden years, with peace of mind in a quiet place that you can call your own, without having to worry about your next meal, medical bill or bus ride. Such a life of dignity is surely what we owe to our Pioneer and Merdeka generations after they have devoted their prime years to Singapore.
When the Minimum Income Standard 2023 report was previously discussed in this House, there was much debate over whether \"a sense of belonging, respect, security and independence\" was a \"basic need\" or \"aspirational\". To me, however, the more pertinent question is: what can we do to make it easier for our senior citizens to live a dignified life, to feel respected and secure as our fellow citizens and recognise that they do belong to Singapore, as independent and autonomous persons rather than a social burden?
At the very least, we can make their lives easier by offering them free off-peak travel on public transport as the WP has proposed in our manifesto. In facilitating their mobility, the elderly not only retain their independence and autonomy, but it can also encourage their participation in social activities and allow them to continue being an active member of society.
And I am sure that most, if not all, Singaporeans would not begrudge offering such dignity to the elderly. After all, it will be an affirmation that our elderly belong here as a part of the collective \"we\". I want to emphasise the importance of dignity because while we remain conscious of the costs, eldercare should be more than a matter of considering cost and economic efficiency. Instead, it is about our collective values as a society and how we choose to take care of the vulnerable among us.
I highlighted the plight of our elderly poor, Mr Speaker, to demonstrate how the pursuit of a \"we first\" society is for naught if the \"we\" is not properly inclusive and allows certain groups of Singaporeans to lag behind. A \"we first\" society must be sensitive to the different needs of different groups, which includes being prepared to offer an extra helping hand if the situation requires it.
Aimé Césaire once poetically described how \"there is a place for all at the Rendezvous of Victory\".
Sir, I am sure that this House agrees that Singapore, at our own Rendezvous of Victory, must be a place for all – that when we win, we all win. This, however, requires the Government to sometimes step in, so that each and every Singaporean has the opportunity to lead a life with dignity.
This creates a virtuous circle, when all of us are assured the opportunity to pursue a life of dignity, it comes naturally to us to be more attentive and extend our consideration to those who are disadvantaged or not as fortunate.
As I have stated at the outset, Singaporeans are not selfish people. We care for others and we follow that up with concrete actions. History has shown that we are able to set aside our personal interests and, sometimes, even sacrifice them for a common cause.
These sentiments of collective solidarity, however, cannot simply be forced. But they can be nurtured by ensuring that all citizens have the resources and opportunities needed to pursue a dignified life. This would foster the sense of security and belonging necessary to motivate collective action. In other words, it is only when each one of us feels that we are truly valued members of society that we can become a \"we first\" society. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Mr Zaqy Mohamad.
The Senior Minister of State for Defence, and Sustainability and the Environment (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, the world today is being reshaped by powerful forces. Earlier, Deputy Prime Minister Gan and Members of the House spoke about geopolitical tension, economic volatility, technological disruption and the looming crisis of climate change.
Today, I will focus on one of the greatest threats to our generation, that is, climate disruption. It is not tomorrow's problem. It is already here. And around the world, the pace of climate action is slowing. The spirit of global cooperation is weakening. In fact, some countries have already wavered in their Paris Agreement pledges. Even with current commitments, the world is on track for warming of two to three degrees, well beyond the 1.5 degrees that science tells us is safe.
Singapore contributes just 0.1% of global emissions. But we will still feel the full force of climate change. While we cannot change the world's trajectory alone, we must be prepared to live with its consequences. As Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said in his National Day Rally speech, \"We must look ahead, anticipate what is on the horizon and prepare to ride the next wave of change.\"
That is the hallmark of the PAP government. We govern not just for the next election cycle, but for the future generations of Singaporeans. Throughout our history, the PAP government has made bold decisions with foresight and discipline. We invested in water resilience before others even thought about it – NEWater, desalination, local catchments. We transformed waste management with incineration and adapted Pulau Semakau. We cleaned up the Singapore River and tackled air pollution long before environmentalism was fashionable.
As our founding Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew once declared: \"I am calculating not in terms of the next election, I am calculating in terms of the next generation; in terms of the next 100 years; in terms of eternity.\" This was said back in 1965 and this spirit endures in today's political leadership.
Singapore's future and our survival is at the front and centre of everything that we do. Our adaptation strategy is not piecemeal. It is coordinated. It is ambitious. It is backed by long-term thinking across generations of leaders. We are looking 30, 50, even 100 years ahead. That is why we have committed about $100 billion over the next century for coastal protection.
This is not an elections or political slogan. We are just four or five months out into the new term. But it is a serious financial commitment, one that we planned prudently and that we will fund sustainably through our fiscal policies and reserves. There are very, very few countries in the world that can say the same.
Climate change is no longer abstract. It is affecting our daily lives. By 2100, sea levels could rise by 1.15 metres. If you add storm surges, almost 30% of our land today is at risk. Think about East Coast Park, Sentosa, Eunos-Kembangan and possibly up to Tanjong Katong, under water.
Imagine Singapore without the coastlines that we are familiar with. No evening jogs or family picnics at East Coast Park. No Marina Bay waterfront skyline. These could be just memories of what we used to be, if we did nothing today.
At the same time, rainfall is intensifying. We feel it. I feel it. I think you feel it too. Extreme daily rainfall could increase by 92% by 2100. Over the years, the Government has spent billions of dollars on our canals and drains to prevent floods. But extreme rainfall will only mean that flash floods in urban areas will only get more common if we do not act. The question is whether we can overcome practical constraints to engineering and costs to cater to extreme weather, given our tight landmass and highly developed urban areas.
The temperature is also getting hotter. Due to global warming and the urban heat island effect, mean daily temperatures may rise by five degrees by 2100. Last year was the hottest year on record globally. And in Singapore, our coldest month today is already warmer than our warmest month in the 1960s – imagine that.
Our food security is also at risk. We import more than 90% of our food. Floods, droughts and export bans can disrupt supplies overnight. We saw this during COVID and got us thinking of new approaches and strategies to develop food resilience.
Water too is vulnerable. Our Four National Taps give us resilience but the changing weather patterns and rising demand means that we must work harder.
These are not distant scenarios, ladies and gentlemen. They are today's lived reality and we can already feel the changes.
At first glance, climate adaptation feels like setting up various defence measures across the country – sea walls, drains, polder systems, solar panels and food stockpiles. But adaptation is also about vision. It is about turning necessity into opportunity.
Take Marina Barrage. History shows us why such long-term projects matter. When Marina Barrage was first proposed, there were many who doubted its feasibility and value. Today, it is one of Singapore's most iconic landmarks – a reservoir, a flood barrier, a place where families gather for recreation. What was once a bold idea has now become a national treasure. While it was built for flood control and water supply, it is now a place where families picnic, students learn, and communities gather.
That is the approach that we must take, protecting our people and our assets with a purpose, and creating greater value in adaptation. We are embarking on a generational effort to protect our coastlines. The \"Long Island\" project along East Coast Park will be more than just a seawall. It will include reclaimed land for homes, a freshwater reservoir and new spaces for recreation. We are creating value for our people by providing more homes, more facilities and more opportunities, while protecting our coastline.
At Pulau Tekong, we have completed Singapore’s first polder. The polder used half the sand required of conventional reclamation, while increasing the training space for the SAF – the size of two Toa Payoh towns.
We have launched site-specific studies for Greater Southern Waterfront, Changi, Jurong Island and more. The studies for Sentosa and the south-west coast will start by 2026. Piece by piece, we are creating a ring of resilience around Singapore.
But we are not on this journey alone. The PAP government will continue to build trust with Singaporeans and bring our people with us for this journey and for the long haul. We want to engage our citizens. We will also consult nature groups like the Nature Society because resilience must also mean shared ownership.
As President Tharman reminded us in his President’s Address that, \"This trust has allowed us to make hard choices when needed and to plan for the future beyond current election cycles\". This is precisely what adaptation demands: choices need to be made today, for risks that may arise decades ahead.
Youth and nature groups have already come forward with ideas, from marine biodiversity corridors to recreational spaces, showing how Singaporeans want to shape their future.
We are also building flood resilience inland. So, this year, we launched an Alliance-for-Action (AfA) to co-create a Flood-Resilient Developments Guidebook with industry partners like the Singapore Institute of Architects. The guidebook will give property owners and developers a toolkit of flood protection measures. These measures will enhance the flood resilience of their premises, while allowing solutions that best integrate with the design.
We are also working with businesses and residents in flood-prone areas. We distribute flood barriers. We run awareness campaigns. No matter how strong the storms are ahead, the Government will work with you to overcome them together. Climate resilience is not just about engineering. It is really also about mindset.
I will now share our plans for heat resilience. Rising heat is changing daily lives and we are developing a whole-of-Government Heat Resilience Strategy. It covers urban planning, building design, public health and community awareness.
The Government has a national heatwave response plan to protect Singaporeans. And this will require the collective effort of the Government, our employers, and our people. For workers involved in heavy physical labour, employers will keep a close watch on heat stress levels and ensure that they have sufficient hydration and rest, away from the sun. Students can dress down or switch to home-based learning if needed.
Besides the efforts from the Government, the public can also play its part. Volunteers can check on vulnerable groups, such as the elderly in our community, to ensure that they are adequately protected. We can open cooling centres at Community Clubs (CCs) and the Resident's Committees (RCs) for vulnerable groups and monitor patients and seniors in hospitals and eldercare centres. Through the myENV app, the public can also get timely Heat Stress Advisory information on how to protect themselves according to heat stress levels.
But ultimately, resilience is not just about infrastructure. It is about mindset. Just as Total Defence reminds us that every Singaporean has a role in our security, climate defence requires collective action by everyone. And the test will come during an extreme climate event. Will we stand together, support the vulnerable and act as one people? That is what will define us as Singaporeans.
We are also learning from others who face extreme heat today. We are studying heatwaves in Europe, heat adaptation measures in the Middle East and exploring novel cooling methods with researchers and preparing before such extreme events reach our shores.
Looking ahead, we are strengthening whole-of-Government coordination and partnering businesses, academia and the community, to develop an integrated Heat Resilience Strategy. This will create shaded walkways, green corridors and cooling zones, which will improve liveability while making our neighbourhoods healthier and more walkable.
Already, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), and the Housing and Development Board (HDB) are testing and scaling innovative measures like new wind flow modelling technologies and cooling materials in our estates. These are among new innovations that can potentially make a difference in our daily comfort in the long run.
Moving on to food and water resilience. Food is part of our culture and our identity. But disruptions are becoming more common. Today, floods, droughts and heatwaves are affecting crops globally.
COVID-19 was a stark reminder of our vulnerabilities. I recall in 2020, there were concerns that countries' COVID-19 measures would lead to food supply disruptions, such as eggs. And this led to increased demand for eggs overnight. Yet, within days, we were able to reassure the public of continued supply due to our diversified sources and stabilised demand. That experience underlined why resilience is non-negotiable.
That is why we are diversifying our sources. Before COVID, eggs came mostly from one country. Today, we import from more than 10 countries, while our local farms here provide a third of our supply.
Even as we increase local food production, we will work to facilitate food imports from new sources. At the industry level, we will support our local importers to nurture strong relationships with business partners through overseas sourcing and business matching trips.
Our local farms and food production still matter. They are our assured source in crises. And we are helping our farms to scale by addressing key challenges of productivity, cost and demand. We want to encourage local farms to tap on technology to grow food in a more productive and climate-resilient manner. Through the Agri-Food Cluster Transformation (ACT) Fund, farms, such as Green Harvest, have invested in a hydroponics greenhouse with automated mobile gulley system. This has made them five times more productive than traditional farms.
But Singaporeans must also support local produce. When we support our local farmers and buy more local produce, such as chye sim or seabass, we are building resilience for ourselves. When Singaporeans choose produce with the SG Fresh Produce branding at supermarkets or wet markets, you are directly supporting our farmers and our food security.
Local produce is fresher, lasts longer, incurs lower carbon footprint to reach us and many are pesticide-free. I am glad that industry players, through SAFEF (Singapore Agro-Food Enterprises Federation Limited), are already working on long-term contracts between farmers and buyers. These are not abstract ideas. They are already feeding Singaporeans today.
Likewise, water is essential to our lives. For Singapore, water is a precious and limited resource. As then-Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said in 2021: \"Water is a strategic and scarce resource, and also a precious fruit of our labours...We are always pushing the limits of our water resources.\"
We have over successive decades built a robust and diversified water supply, made possible by right-pricing water. We have built up our Four National Taps – local catchment, imported water, NEWater and desalination – to strengthen our water resilience.
But as our population and economy grows, and as weather patterns change, we have to work harder to conserve this precious resource because water security is also national security.
Singapore's waste system is so efficient to the point that it is pretty much out of sight, out of mind. The issue for Singapore is that we have very limited land for waste management and the reality is that Semakau Landfill may be full by 2035, just 10 years ahead. As Singapore becomes more affluent and develops new industries, we will produce and consume more. Hence, if we do not manage our waste well, we will face issues of disposing them within the next just 10 years.
Since 2021, we have collected over 30,000 tonnes of e-waste under the Extended Producer Responsibility scheme to develop a circular economy. In 2026, we will launch the Beverage Container Return Scheme to boost the recycling of plastics and metals. For food waste, large commercial and industrial food waste generators in new buildings, they must now segregate food waste for treatment, and this will be extended to more and more buildings.
The industry is also stepping up. The AfA on Packaging Waste Reduction for the E-Commerce Sector, which included players like Amazon and Shopee, has developed guidelines to encourage the use of sustainable packaging. In our estates, new initiatives, such as REhub bins allow residents to deposit recyclables, scan QR codes and track recycling habits. This helps to build awareness and give families a sense of ownership in reducing waste.
But we must also recognise that we have room to improve. Our overall recycling rate stands at about 50%, as compared to 63% in Australia. This comparison is a reminder that Singapore can and must do better with our collective effort. Everyone can do the 3Rs – reduce consumption, reuse what you can, recycle right. And this only works if we all commit, together.
Moving on to a low carbon future. Despite the backsliding of global climate action, Singapore must stay the course in our transition to a low carbon future. There is the economic imperative to ensure that our businesses and jobs remain competitive for the long term.
We will continue to support businesses with incentives to improve their energy efficiency. Based on the latest data from the International Energy Agency, Singapore's energy intensity would rank amongst the lowest one-third, if compared to all OECD countries. Singapore imports almost all of our energy supply and it is important that Singapore raises our energy efficiency to make every joule count.
As businesses improve on their energy efficiency, we will continue to calibrate the price signal through the carbon tax, which aims to enhance the business case for low-carbon solutions. The Government uses the carbon tax we collect to support businesses in the green transition and we encourage adoption of low-carbon technologies, such as solar power.
The good news is that Singapore has achieved our 2025 solar deployment target of 1.5 gigawatt-peak (GWp) and is on track to meet our goal of at least two GWp by 2030. We are also partnering industry for other climate mitigation measures, such as high-quality carbon credits, as well as cross-border carbon capture and storage.
As regional countries explore nuclear power, we are building capabilities in nuclear science and safety. Through the Singapore Nuclear Research and Safety Institute, we aim to grow from 50 to 100 experts by 2030. And this will allow us to assess risks prudently, and plan for long-term possibilities.
Households too play their part. The Climate Friendly Households Programme supports households in switching to efficient appliances. As of August 2025, 78% of eligible HDB and 55% of private households have claimed their Climate Vouchers, of which $187 million has been utilised. This helps households save on utility bills, while helping to lower our carbon footprint.
We are also making full use of our land. By 2030, nearly every HDB block with a suitable rooftop will be fitted with solar panels. These panels power common services – lifts, lights, and water pumps – directly lowering energy costs for residents and Town Councils.
Mr Speaker, climate change is the defining challenge of our generation. Every adaptation measure I have shared – whether it is $100 billion in coastal protection, national heat strategies, food and water resilience, or circular economy innovation – reflects more than just engineering. It reflects a philosophy of governance, a philosophy rooted in the PAP government's long-term view, passed down from our founding fathers, across generations of political leaders and to the 4G leaders of today. This is rooted in fiscal prudence, political will and the conviction that every generation must leave behind a stronger foundation for the next.
As Minister Grace Fu reminded us at the V3 National Climate Change Study Symposium last year: \"Climate change is an existential threat for Singapore, and the Government treats it with utmost seriousness. We are investing significantly to better understand it and starting our planning and preparatory works.\"
In the next five years, we will develop Singapore's inaugural National Adaptation Plan (NAP), which Minister announced this year at Committee of Supply (COS) 2025. The NAP will be our living roadmap to address the physical risks and social impact of climate change.
This is the commitment that my colleagues and I at the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) bring to this work. We plan, we prepare, and we act early, because safeguarding Singapore is our first duty.
President Tharman shared in his address at the Opening of this Session Parliament, \"We will nurture a 'we first' society at every level, starting in the community.\"
That is our calling today, to take the long view, to put \"we before me\", to protect tomorrow with resilience, steward today's resources responsibly and ensure that Singapore, our little red dot, continues to thrive in a turbulent world.
This is the PAP government's promise, to govern not just for the next election, but for future generations to come. And for us, for all of us here in this Chamber, to do so with the same courage and foresight of our founding fathers, that built the Singapore that we enjoy today. Mr Speaker, can I continue in Malay, please?
(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong stated in his National Day Speech that, \"We must also look ahead – anticipate what is on the horizon, and prepare to ride the next wave of change.\"
Climate change is the greatest challenge of our generation. It is not a future issue – it is already happening. Heat is increasing, rainfall is getting heavier and sea levels are rising. Singapore only contributes 0.1% of global emissions, but we will feel its full impact.
Here lies the uniqueness of the PAP government. From the beginning, we have never governed just for electoral cycles, but for the future of all Singaporeans. As demonstrated by Mr Lee Kuan Yew in the Singapore Water Story, the Government does not shy away from tough decisions, plan for decades ahead and ensure that we allocate resources to carry out the plans. This spirit has enabled Singapore to survive, and this same spirit also guides us in facing climate change today.
First, coastal and flood protection. The Government has made the bold decision to invest $100 billion over 100 years to protect our coastline. The Long Island project will protect the East Coast from sea level rise, whilst providing housing, freshwater reservoirs and recreational space. The polder at Pulau Tekong demonstrates that we can protect our coastline in a more resource-efficient manner, whilst giving the SAF a larger training space.
Second, heat resilience. The Government is developing a national Heat Resilience Strategy that encompasses urban design, public health, and community support. During heat waves, we can issue warnings through the myENV application, as well as protect workers and students. But resilience is not just about infrastructure – it is about society's attitude to stand together, just like the spirit of Total Defence.
Third, food and water resilience. During COVID-19, we saw how supplies can be easily affected. Now, we import eggs from over 10 countries and our local farms increased their production through modern technology. We also encourage citizens to buy local products with the SG Fresh Produce label.
Water will remain a strategic issue. Therefore, we developed NEWater and desalination plants. As Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said in 2021, water is a strategic resource and our most precious energy product – that is why the PAP government continues to invest with fiscal discipline and foresight.
Fourth, waste management. If nothing is done, Semakau Island will be completely filled by 2035. The Government did not wait for a crisis to occur. We are implementing extended producer responsibility policies, planning a beverage container return scheme in 2026, and also developing a circular economy with industry. This is how the PAP government works – we do not run away from trade-offs or challenging issues, but plan boldly with a view for the long term.
Finally, energy innovation. Singapore has achieved the 2025 solar target much earlier, and by 2023 almost all suitable HDB rooftops will have solar panels installed. We also import renewable energy through the LTMS project, while supporting households with Climate Vouchers. All of this shows that we are not only resilient, but also remain competitive in the future green economy.
Mr Speaker, climate change is an existential threat. But it is also an opportunity to show what makes Singapore different – we have a Government that boldly plans decades ahead, has fiscal discipline, and is committed to taking care of the people beyond electoral cycles.
As President Tharman underlined in the President’s address \"We will nurture a \"we first\" society at every level.\" For me and my colleagues MSE, this is our commitment – to plan ahead, protect our people, and ensure Singapore is always prepared to face climate challenges. This is the PAP government's pledge – we govern not for the next election, but we govern for the next generation. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.
Mr Sharael Taha: Mr Speaker, I would just like to raise a clarification on Mr Fadli Fawzi's speech earlier. He mentioned a fundraiser where more than $2.4 million of funds was released for Gaza and one of the donors was from a temple. Was he referring to the M3 fundraiser for Gaza?
Mr Speaker: Mr Fadli Fawzi. Mr Fadli, I will give you some time. I will call on Ms Tin Pei Ling first.
Ms Tin Pei Ling (Marine Parade-Braddell Heights): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Address of Thanks to President Tharman's speech at this Parliament's Opening. President, in his speech, spoke of Singapore being at a critical juncture in our history as we celebrate SG60, and the importance of how we must remain resilient and inclusive, embracing the \"we first\" mindset, even as we navigate a turbulent world and transform for the future.
Indeed, Singapore's story has been remarkable, characterised by a silent defiance.
Firstly, defying the odds of history. When Singapore became independent in 1965, many doubted our survival. We were a small nation with no natural resources. Deep social divides, racial riots and hostile neighbours could have torn us apart.
Yet, we defied the odds. Through grit, unity and foresight, we transformed ourselves into a thriving economy and a cohesive society that we are proud of today. Our early generations refused to be defined by limitations and built a nation greater than the sum of its parts.
Then, defying the odds of de-globalisation and a turbulent world. Today, the odds we face are different, but just as formidable. The global order is shifting, major powers are contesting influence and the economic climate is more uncertain than ever.
Following the Cold War, Pax Americana shaped the international order, building institutions, establishing rules-based international order and delivering a long period of relative stability and prosperity. Yet, concentration of power carries risk. If a single hegemon ceases to act as a steady, rules‑based steward, the global system can be destabilised. Recent trends, from abrupt policy shifts, perceived abandonment of allies, sudden tariff escalations and weakening of multilateral and international bodies have exposed those vulnerabilities and heightened geopolitical uncertainty. These have significant impact on how supply chains are structured, on trade and talent flows and definitely on Singapore.
Escalating geopolitical rivalry and US protectionism will reshape sourcing, manufacturing location decisions, logistics patterns and trade flows. These will affect Singapore's advanced manufacturing which contributes to over 20% of our GDP and other sectors of the trade and our status as a hub.
Interestingly, in a recent closed door sharing organised by my firm with large scale international payment service providers supporting cross border trade, an observation made was that trade is now more point-to-point, as opposed to passing through central nodes.
Also, \"friendshoring\" by firms would also mean that trades happen within allied blocs. Singapore would have to ensure that we continue to participate in the various trading blocs, which we have been thankfully so far. But this is also contingent on not being forced to choose sides.
In addition, the US tariffs, if they persist, could have profound implications on Singapore as highlighted by our leaders in this House before. The US tariff on Singapore may be relatively low but given how we import, value-add and then export, other countries could pass the cost of tariffs to us, resulting in our overall costs and prices to go up. At some point, coupled with the possibility of preferential trade agreements favouring bilateral corridors and logistics optimisations, we could be priced out of the competition and trade and firms could bypass Singapore altogether.
As countries increasingly turn inward, doubting the benefits of globalisation and retreating from multilateralism, one wonders how Singapore companies can still dream global?
Hence, in the face of these extrinsic challenges, Singapore must remain a stable node in an unstable world. A place where investors can trust the rule of law, where talent knows merit is valued and where citizens feel secure amidst global disruption. At the same time, we must be a stable node that is resilient. As a hub, we have to offer secure and diversified services to support the supply chains and trade. We also have to enhance our trade facilitation and digital services to keep competitive.
We must also be a stable node with many connections. We must continue to be among the world's most open and connected hubs, in air and sea transport, in trade and finance, in talent, data flows and digital networks. Here, I applaud our Government's efforts in constantly building up our position as air and sea hubs. The much anticipated Terminal 5 and Changi East development will no doubt add to Singapore's competitive advantage.
It is also encouraging to know of our Government's efforts to sign more Free Trade Agreements and Digital Economy Agreements, making sure we maintain high standards and inter-operability for data, digital infrastructure and networks so that trade and innovation can still flourish.
Could we do more? The answer must be yes.
Technological advancements have been enablers but also game changers. Singapore may not be known for inventing foundational technologies, but we can invent new systems and excel in applications built upon these technologies.
For example, leverage our strategic position in ASEAN and build regional digital financial infrastructure. It could be inter-operable payment rails using tokens to reduce our region's overreliance on any particular currency or cross border payment rail. It could be a cross‑border real‑time payments utility hosted in Singapore, given our strong legal and regulatory trust framework. It could be a tokenised trade and commodities platforms to facilitate trade finance. It could also be an independent digital arbitration and compliance registry trusted by companies and institutions for sanctions, export control vetting and contract enforcement, leveraging our strong legal services, combined with the use of blockchain for audit trails and AI for evidence analysis.
It could be a certified, geopolitically neutral cloud and confidential compute marketplace for regional or international enterprises needing to maintain independence. It could also be a decentralised energy and critical minerals marketplace offering trusted certifications as geopolitical competition for energy and critical minerals intensifies.
Some of these are probably already being considered by the Government or happening as we speak. These are just broad ideas and examples of how Singapore can defy the odds of our extrinsic reality. I am sure there are many other and better ideas out there. So, in this term, I urge that we continue promoting public-private partnerships to discover new ideas, to deliver excellence and to create new possibilities for Singapore.
Ultimately, our relentless pursuit for economic progress – survival, in this case – is and must be rooted in our pursuit of improving lives for our people. So, even as the world churns and pressures, Singapore must endeavour to remain stable. As others build walls, Singapore will build bridges.
Next, defying the odds of demographics. At home, our society is also changing. Our population is ageing. Our younger generations face vastly different challenges. The way we live, work and play are different. Our policies, approach and infrastructure have to evolve.
Gen Z today face challenges different from that of mine. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, Gen Z Singaporeans missed out on internships and overseas exchange experiences. Also, with the rise of AI, entry-level jobs are affected and job search strategies that used to work may no longer work now. Fragmented career paths could be a permanent trend.
It is, thus, heartening to observe the Government's efforts in supporting our youths in their education and employment. Such efforts to empower and keep them relevant must continue.
Many may see an ageing population as a burden, but in Singapore, we can and should shape how we age. We can organise ourselves so that seniors enjoy healthier and more fulfilling lives supported by better healthcare, stronger communities and lifelong learning.
Much has been said about how to support our seniors better, so I will not expound them again here. But what is worth repeating is that we must make sure that our seniors today and tomorrow do not give up on themselves. We must not be handicapped by our own prejudices towards old age. We must continue to work on our policies, infrastructure and programmes to enable seniors to live healthier, work better, if they so choose, and play harder.
Defy the odds by transforming longevity into our source of strength. It is not just our people who age. So does our hardware and infrastructure.
Singapore's hardware and infrastructure, from HDB flats and estate common facilities to rail networks, power cables and more, underpin daily and community life, economic activity and national resilience. Much of this built capital has served our nation well for decades, but with demographic shifts, technological changes, climate risks and simply the passage of time, mean that the \"business as usual\" maintenance and periodic upgrades are no longer sufficient. Singapore must refresh existing hardware and infrastructure more intensively and build new, future‑ready ones to sustain living standards.
Firstly, with age comes wear and tear. Pipes, lifts, walls, ceilings and other components in flats and housing precincts suffer wear, obsolescence and greater fault frequency, worse if they happen together. For those of us who have mature housing estates, will know that the lifts cannot last until the recommended 28 years. Our Town Council, for example, had to bring forward the replacement of over 100 lifts in MacPherson because it has come to a point whereby the lifts just kept breaking down, no matter how much we maintained the lifts.
Our rail lines, signalling, substations and power distribution networks could face the same challenge. Hence, deeper interventions and bigger budgets are to be expected.
Secondly, as our demographics shift, demand patterns and standards will evolve. For example, an aging population means greater use of lifts, means more sheltered walkways with more benches needed for resting along the way. With the move to using more electronic vehicles and eventually autonomous vehicles as well, more charging stations and other infrastructure will be needed, and so space and power allocation has to change. Overall, planning norms, quality standards and budgets will have to change.
Thirdly, climate changes will add to the challenges we face. Higher temperatures, more intense storms and rising sea levels can accelerate material degradation, strain our drainage and power systems and increase the need for backup and emergency response capabilities.
Taken together, Singapore must take a strategic approach that treats infrastructure as long‑lived systems requiring continuous investment, greater use of digital solutions for better oversight and periodic, deep renewal. This means having to consider new norms, higher standards, more predictive approaches and, unfortunately, higher public spending. A tough job for the Ministry of Finance (MOF).
Though refreshing or building new infrastructure is not exactly defying the odds, it is important because the right build environment can free us from everyday friction, sharpen our focus, spark creativity and unlock our best performance. In Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): In his address at the Opening of Parliament, President Tharman pointed out that Singapore stands at a historical juncture. Despite global turbulence and mounting uncertainties, we must maintain resilience and inclusivity, moving forward with steady steps towards the future.
Singapore's story has never been ordinary. This extraordinariness stems from Singaporeans' quiet determination to \"never give up.\"
We never give up: rising from historical adversity. Our forefathers refused to let circumstances limit us. Through perseverance, unity and foresight, Singapore became a prosperous economy and harmonious society that makes us proud today.
We never give up: we must strive to break through amidst de-globalisition and a turbulent world. Today, we face different but equally severe adversities. The international order is being restructured, US-China rivalry is intensifying, and the economic environment is increasingly uncertain. These changes profoundly affect supply chains, trade and talent flows, and will inevitably impact Singapore.
Geopolitical competition and rising protectionism will reshape choices of procurement and manufacturing locations, logistics patterns and trade flows. This will shake our position as a hub, affect our economic development, and impact our people's long-term livelihoods and quality of life. Deglobalisation also means that globally-minded Singapore enterprises may be unable to fully deploy their capabilities and realise their ambitions.
Therefore, even as the world fluctuates with both old and new pressures coexisting, Singapore must still strive for stability. When other nations build walls, we must build bridges. We must uphold the rule of law, strengthen external and domestic trust in our institutions, remain open whilst ensuring our citizens feel secure amidst turbulence.
We never give up: demographics need not be a constraint. Our society is changing. Population is aging; younger generation is facing vastly different challenges, lifestyles are also changing accordingly. Our policy formulation and implementation must stay relevant.
Many view ageing as a burden. But in Singapore, we can and should reshape how we view old age. Over the years, our government has been committed to supporting our elderly to live healthier, more fulfilling and more productive lives through better healthcare and more diverse social and community structures. We must reject the negative mindset of \"waiting to die\" or \"being useless when old.\" We must strive to give all Singaporeans, young and old, reasons and motivation to look forward to each new day. With our never-give-up spirit, we will transform longevity into a source of strength.
Just now, WP parliamentary colleagues seemed to insinuate that my party is autocratic in their speech. Let me respond to this.
Since coming to power, the PAP has consistently upheld a people-centric philosophy in governing the nation. Whilst our governing methods may differ at various points in time, our original intentions and principles remain unchanged. In the early days of independence, we faced harsh and volatile environment, surrounded by challenges on all sides. This naturally required decisive leadership to lead the people and nation through difficulties. Our achievement has made people proud. On the international stage, though we are a small red dot, our voice is not small, and the overall quality of life for our people has been substantially improved. This could only be achieved through the dedication of our leaders and the full cooperation of our people.
Today, we have had three Prime Ministers and welcome the fourth generation of leadership led by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong. The PAP's governing philosophy remains unchanged. In the Prime Minister’s many important speeches, he has consistently emphasised people-centric governance and a We-first sprit. The Prime Minister has also promised that the Government will continue to listen to Singaporeans' voices through various channels, so that we can all participate in nation-building, build trust and deepen our national identity to achieve common goals. Facing a diverse society, we must be inclusive and accommodating, drawing strengths from all and learning from each other, so that we can go far.
As elected MPs, we will certainly follow the same philosophy, serve wholeheartedly and trust our constituents, living up to their expectations. As a democratic country, of course we cannot be autocratic. The key point is that we do not make compromises because we fear losing. We do so because we choose to have our nation and the people at heart and work for the long-term interests of the country and people.
(In English): Sir, this year, we celebrate SG60. As a Singaporean, I am glad that we have not let our forefathers down. Singapore remains a shining red dot on the world stage. Yet, as President Tharman reminded us, Singapore now stands again at a pivotal moment. A nation tested by history, by the turbulence of a shifting world and by profound domestic changes.
Singapore has always risen to respond to challenges time and again, through our openness and resilience, through our long-term planning and willingness to take action, through our resolve, grit and unity. And it shall be no different now as we mark SG60.
At this point, I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the residents of MacPherson and the broader Marine Parade-Braddell Heights group representation constituency (GRC). Thank you for your trust in us, in me, so that we can continue this journey together, so that we can be your voice in this House.
We have grown together for so many years in the past. We have overcome many different and difficult moments, including the COVID-19 pandemic. Together, we have come up with new ideas to strengthen our community, to better our services, to deliver common good for the broader community. We have raised funds and crowdsourced for ideas, and I believe that we will continue to grow stronger together.
In conclusion, we have defied the odds then, we will defy the odds again and again. I support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Mr Fadli Fawzi.
Mr Fadli Fawzi: Mr Speaker, in response to Mr Sharael's clarification, in the article, he said it was a SG60 community fundraising initiative together with M³@Towns.
Mr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.
Mr Sharael Taha: Mr Speaker, I just wanted to thank Mr Fadli for citing the good work that our M³ and M³ volunteers do. It is really a good example of a \"we first\" society. In just over a month, during the month of Ramadan, the M³ volunteers raised $2.4 million through stallholders, individuals, businesses and also through temples. It is a good example of a \"we first\" society where we can work together towards a common good.
Mr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, I support the Motion to thank the President for his address. President Tharman Shanmugaratnam reminded us that the world is changing in profound ways; that our global order is fraying; that we must face the future with foresight, with fortitude and with faith in one another. Allow me to frame my remarks under three themes. First, unity at home; second, competitiveness through innovation; and third, conviction in the rule of law.
Mr Speaker, families form the foundation of our nation. They are the fortress where values are first planted and resilience, nurtured. The President was right to emphasise that we must continue to support parents, children and seniors, whether through childcare, housing, eldercare, or help for blended and multi-generation families. Five years ago in my maiden Parliamentary speech in this House, I spoke about my son’s love of playing with Lego blocks and how each Lego brick is like our family unit; the building blocks of our society, with each one unique in shape and form and how we can enhance support and connection with one another.
I have taught my son to pick up chess. What began as a game, quickly became a way for me to share life lessons. I taught him three lessons. First, the goal is to capture the king; you can risk everything, but not your queen. Second, if you play to avoid losing a single piece, then you will surely play to lose. Third, whether you are king or pawn, everyone returns to the same wooden box in the end. These, Mr Speaker, are not just lessons in chess, but also lessons in love and in life. We protect what is most precious to us, we take bold steps when needed and in the end, we must remember that what matters is not status, but how we played the game, the game of life.
Beyond families and into our communities, racial and religious harmony, meritocracy, also form the vital glue that holds a nation together through times of change. In our pursuit of growth and progress, these must never be sacrificed or compromised, for they are not negotiable assets but enduring safeguards of our collective well-being.
Lesson number one: just as in chess, where the goal must be to capture the king but one must never recklessly risk the queen, we must strive for success and advancement, yet we must never endanger the sanctity of family life and our racial and religious harmony. Without them, even the boldest pursuit of victory would come at too great a cost. That is why I am proposing more support for families by extending schemes, such as the LargeFamilies Scheme’s LifeSG Credits to support more families, including blended families with stepchildren. In this House, I have also previously called for more childcare leave and support to be given to families with more children.
Beyond this, let us strengthen parental support, expand inter-generational programmes, enhance after-school care and provide more relief for caregivers. Just as in chess, every piece matters, in Singapore every family, no matter its form, deserves our support. Our nation’s story is one of sacrifice and solidarity. We must continue to choose \"we first\", not \"me first\".
Mr Speaker, the President reminded us that global competition is intensifying, costs alone will not carry us forward. We must adapt faster, innovate bolder, compete on skill, on speed and on trust. Here, too, the lessons of chess offer some wisdom. Lesson number two: if you play only to avoid losing a single piece, then you will surely play to lose. The player who hesitates, clinging to pieces, fearing change, will soon find himself cornered. The master anticipates, innovates and deploys each piece to the best advantage. Likewise, if Singapore clings to old ways, paralysed by fear of change, we will be overtaken. To win, we must anticipate, take calculated risks and deploy every piece to its best advantage.
For Singapore, this means skilling up our people, scaling up our enterprises and sharpening our public service. SkillsFuture Level-Up and mid-career reskilling schemes are like pawns steadily advancing, each move creating new possibilities. Enterprises that harness artificial intelligence, green technologies and advanced manufacturing are like bishops and rooks, powerful when used with foresight.
But innovation must not stop with businesses or workers. Government too, must lead by example. In my recent Parliamentary Questions, I asked whether AI tools and technology are being explored in Government’s procurement processes to reduce errors and strengthen oversight and to also introduce more dynamic socio-economic assistance packages that can be more responsive to real cost-of-living pressures.
Mr Speaker, Singapore has always been a city that defies its size: a small but smart nation. If we remain restless in innovation, relentless in improvement and responsible in governance, then like a skilful chess player, we will not merely react to the board but we can be five moves ahead. We will shape the game and remain resilient in a shifting world.
Mr Speaker, the President warned us also that “might is right” is once again rearing its ugly head. Tariff wars and protectionism are weakening global trade rules. In conflict zones and humanitarian crisis places, like Gaza, civilians suffer most when international humanitarian law is disregarded. Here too, I return to that simple lesson I shared with my son. Lesson number three: at the end of the game, whether you are king or pawn, everyone goes back into the same wooden box. It is a reminder of humility, of equality and of the limits of power. In chess, even the strongest piece must obey the rules, without them, the game collapses into chaos. Likewise, in international relations, rules and law are what protect the small from the strong, the weak from the powerful. For Singapore, this means upholding fairness and the rule of law at home, ensuring justice is impartial, combating foreign interference, protecting our people from crime and terrorism. Internationally, it means standing up for the rules-based order, defending open trade against protectionism, affirming humanitarian principles that shield civilians from suffering.
Singapore may be small, but when we stand by principle, we are larger than our size. In choosing rules over power, we safeguard not only ourselves but the very system that allows small states, like us, to stand tall. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): Mr Speaker, for a small country like Singapore, adherence to international law is extremely important because it is the main safeguard that ensures our sovereignty, security and right to exist amongst the great powers. In today's increasingly fragmented and uncertain geopolitical climate, we must continue to hold firmly to our principles because only in this way can the international system remain fair, orderly and provide protection to small nations.
Singapore's position on the international stage is not merely due to the extent of our territory or economic strength, but because we firmly uphold international law, principles of justice, and the resolve to always become a trustworthy partner nation. Therefore, although we are small on the world map, we wield considerable voice and influence, because we stand tall on a foundation of principles.
Even as the world outside is increasingly in turmoil, marked by division and conflict, Singapore must not waver. Racial and religious harmony is our most important heritage, while social cohesion and meritocracy is our most powerful weapon. As long as we stand together as one nation, our spirit will not waver – because in unity lies the strength of a country with a great soul.
May I recite two Malay quatrains:
The banyan tree spreads wide and fair
Its shade protects the village way
Racial harmony, our heritage to bear
A treasure for each passing day
The boat anchors where waters meet
The wind brings news from far and wide
We stand together, hearts complete
Our nation's strength and lasting pride
Mr Fadli Fawzi said in his speech earlier that before being able to have a thinking of \"we first\", we must also first look at ourselves. I thank him for agreeing with this position. In fact, this has been the PAP government's approach all along. For us, meritocracy and helping those who need it more do not contradict each other.
Prof Kenneth Tan and Prof Hussein Alatas also emphasised that not everyone starts from the same position. We acknowledge this. Singapore's meritocracy system is not just for development alone, but to uplift everyone.
The M3 initiative, Project Dian supporting rental flat families, Project Fitrah for vulnerable families, Mathematics classes for preschool children, Workfare and the Progressive Wage Model for low-income workers, assistance through the Merdeka Package, Pioneer, Silver Support and many others. All of these, all of these, are for the various segments of our society who need them.
\"We first\" does not mean we are blind to the factors that hinder an individual's development Our meritocracy serves to ward off nepotism, tokenism, and cronyism in governance. However, our meritocracy in Singapore is also accompanied by compassion. Our meritocracy gives us the opportunity to help those who need it more.
This is our shared responsibility. This is the \"we first\" that the President and Prime Minister Lawrence Wong meant.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, the word gotong royong, since it is the Malay language one, duat gotong royong. \"Gotong\" is derived from the Javanese verb \"ngotong\", which signifies the act of carrying a burden. \"Royong\" implies doing it together. Meritocracy is our shared commitment to help one another with compassion, our \"gotong-royong\", this is how we Singaporeans carry each other together.
Unity at home, competitiveness through innovation, conviction in the rule of law. These are the three coordinates of our course as a nation. Just like the chess lessons I gave to my son who is going to sit for his Primary School Leaving Examination soon, we safeguard what is dearest, we act with courage when the moment calls for it and, in the end, it is not rank that defines us, but the integrity with which we played the game.
Hence, if we keep our families firm and our society inclusive; if we keep our people skilled, our enterprises bold and our Government innovative with integrity; if we keep our politics principled and our laws respected, our people united, then like a well-played game of chess, Singapore will not just survive in this turbulent tournament of nations, but secure a stronger, fairer and more united future for generations to come. Majulah Singapura!
Mr Speaker: Ms Tin Pei Ling you have a clarification?
Ms Tin Pei Ling: Mr Speaker, I forgot to declare my interest that I am working in a major payment institution and therefore, just now, earlier in my speech, I mentioned the closed-door event organised by my firm. I would like to declare my interest here.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment of Debate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Changi): Mr Speaker. May I seek your consent to move the debate now adjourned?
Mr Speaker: I give my consent.
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the debate be now adjourned.\" – [Mr Sharael Taha]. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha, debate to be resumed on what day?
Mr Sharael Taha: Tomorrow, Mr Speaker, Sir.
Mr Speaker: So be it. Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Toward Certificate of Entitlement (COE) 2.0","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Sir. Back in July this year, I uploaded a social media post that congratulated Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong for receiving an honorary fellowship from the Economic Society of Singapore. The honour was the highest that the society, of which I am a council member, can grant. In my post I observed how I differed philosophically from Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
These have to do with differing beliefs about the philosophy of public policy, especially as it concerns market efficiency and fair distribution. I used an example he raised in his dialogue, about the certificate of entitlement (COE) system and explained how, by relegating allocation decisions to an impersonal market, he implicitly accepted that such resulting allocations were fair, or as fair as they could potentially be. I noted that there could be a difference between COE allocations based on market prices, versus individual needs.
Sir, it is valuable, at the outset, to stress that I do not differ from the Government's position on prioritising public transport. Singapore is a dense, urban city, and like all such cities, public transportation is rightly the cornerstone of intra-city commuting. The Ministry of Transport (MOT) efforts should, rightly, be focused on expanding efficient, affordable and accessible public transport.
This includes addressing our over-congestion issues along certain Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) and Light Rail Transit (LRT) lines, including in Sengkang, the constituency that I represent and as discussed earlier today, and improving cross-island connectivity to reduce commute times, not downplaying the importance of the bus system as a last-mile solution given our hot and humid climate and ageing population, and a road system that is more inclusive of greener travel options.
I first spoke about Singapore's vehicle quota system (VQS), and the associated COEs, in a Workers' Party Motion filed in 2023, on the cost-of-living crisis. My speech at the time was focused on refining the system, as I understood it. Among the most important suggestions I offered was a supply-side change, to smooth the annual quota supply across a 10-year cycle, so that what is on offer every month would roughly be the same, and a demand-side one, to shift private hire car (PHC) bids to the Open Category (Cat) E. These would, in my view, contribute to containing COE price increases, as well as its fluctuation. Such moves are even more salient today, as this month's Cat A and B premia cleared eye-watering amounts of $119,000 and $136,000, respectively.
Since that time, the Ministry has rolled out the cut-and-fill system, which seeks to balance out the year-to-year variations in COE supply. While it has been implemented with less vigor than I would have personally preferred, in the debate at the time, then-Transport Minister Chee explained that the Government's position was based on the desire to minimise disamenities that would result from introducing too many cars on the road in the short-term. I am, nevertheless, gratified that at least some steps have been taken to manage the feast-and-famine nature of year-to-year COE pricing. I urge the Government to be more aggressive in its cutting from future supply and not be satisfied with mainly moving guaranteed de-registrations. I am also hopeful that the Government will eventually come round to moving PHCs into the quota for Cat E, as it already does with taxis, so that their commercially-minded bids do not inadvertently distort demand for non-commercial use.
In my speech, I also underscored how the VQS system resulted in our ability to enjoy uncongested streets, especially compared to other global cities, such as London or New York, which has, perhaps revealingly, since gone ahead with a road pricing scheme of their own. It would not be a mischaracterisation to state that I believe that the benefits of the system outweigh the costs and I do not favour its complete repeal.
Still, in my speech then, I also alluded to how, while the Government contends that private car ownership is a luxury rather than a need, there are certain groups for whom access to a car is much closer to a need than a luxury.
Today, I will build on that speech I delivered two years ago. I hope to propose another refinement, this time not to improve its efficiency per se, but its equity. To set the stage, I will first share my view on why certain groups are in greater need for private transport. I will then discuss how the COE system can be further refined to account for not just ability to pay but also access according to needs.
Sir, I believe three groups benefit disproportionately from private car ownership: parents of multiple young children; caregivers to elderly parents, especially if one or both suffer from chronic illness; and those who are disabled.
Any parent of a young child, of whom I am one, will grasp how game-changing it is to be able to directly ferry their kids from, say, one supplementary or tuition class to another, especially if their interests and talents differ, and instructors and schools are located all over the island. Those who have potentially given up their own careers to take care of a parent battling perhaps cancer will appreciate the flexibility that private transport affords as they bring their father or mother to their chemotherapy sessions. And it is a given that those who lack physical mobility due to a disability would benefit enormously from the independence afforded by a car.
Importantly, such groups are not unfamiliar to us. We have agencies, the Agency for Integrated Care and SG Enable, to coordinate elderly and disabled care, and an entire Ministry, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), whose raison d'être is to support families. We already have clear definitions for what constitutes a primary caregiver to seniors, who is a parent or guardian of a child as stipulated in the Young Persons Act and an MSF-accepted basis for those who are considered disabled in our social policies.
What else is common among these groups, however, is that their need for private transportation is more acute than that of the average citizen. They would, accordingly, benefit from financial support that would make a car more accessible to them. Notably, in one specific case, the disabled, we, and I cannot emphasise enough, already have in place a programme, the Disabled Persons Scheme, that grants a full waiver of the COE, if a disabled person is seeking a vehicle to commute to work.
One may argue that this lack of discrimination, if you will, is by design. Rather than provide targeted support toward car ownership, the Government currently provides generalised financial assistance, which can easily be applied toward offsetting the cost of a COE. Money is fungible and such generality allows each beneficiary household to decide for themselves whether the cash is better spent on transport, or any other need.
But yet, this Government has not, historically, shied away from choosing targeted support, so long as it felt that there could be potential spillover benefits from directing individual or corporate conduct. That is why our Community Development Council vouchers are targeted, because we wish to not only encourage household consumption via such transfers, but to also direct spending toward supporting our heartland businesses. That is why we grant businesses tax write-offs for qualifying research and development expenditures, so that they devote more resources toward growth-enhancing innovation. That is why Ministry of Education directs its financial assistance scheme for low-income households toward educational expenses, such as fees and books, to help educate the next generation and, hopefully, break free from that cycle of poverty.
By the same token, targeted support for car ownership can promote positive behaviours, such as children engaging in caregiving for their elderly father or mother, or time-strapped parents deciding to have their second or third child, or those with disabilities feeling sufficiently empowered to enter the workforce.
But it is more than that. Such targeted mechanisms can serve as a signal of the values we place, as a society, on cultural norms, such as filial piety, family bonding, and care for the weak and downtrodden. One may say that it is hard to adjudicate between different groups with needs and so it is better not to do so at all, by leaving it to the market. Or, you may say, like me, that we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good and seek a way to help certain groups that we have already identified as more needy.
This is not the first time that this House will have debated the merits of enabling greater access to COE for certain groups. In the 14th Parliament, then-Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Hazel Poa mooted the idea of a COE credits allocation framework, where tradable credits replace the existing price-based system. Certain groups, families with young children, the elderly, the disabled, and those who have served National Service, would receive slightly larger allocations, in recognition of their greater needs, or greater contributions. To blunt the fiscal impact, she suggested a base fee, which is either determined by car engine capacity or as a share of the vehicle's open market value.
The proposal's intent is similar to what I will suggest today: to better level the playing field between the genuine needs of certain households for a private vehicle, versus their ability to pay for a COE. It bridges the gap between need and affordability. In that regard, the spirit of the idea is sound.
However, Ms Hazel Poa's proposal relies on a non-price system for the initial allocation, before subsequently subjecting these credits to market exchange, which introduces additional wrinkles of complexity and opacity to an otherwise straightforward auction-based pricing system.
The Government’s response to the proposal raised similar concerns about how it is complicated and runs the risk of inefficient pricing. But then-Senior Minister of State for Transport Amy Khor also trotted out an old trope, that having the Government dictate differential credit allocations would be excessively subjective. Senior Minister Lee, in his address, had made a similar point, that the market was the most fair and efficient way.
While I agree that the Vickrey auction, on which the COE is based, is indeed an efficient mechanism, let us not pretend that it is actually fair or neutral. Allowing prices to be dictated by the market simply abstracts from need, by allowing money to adjudicate between competing demands. Those with more money will automatically be able to bid more, to secure the limited resource. It is only fair if we believe that the distribution of income and wealth in society is also always fair.
What might be a simple way forward? I will propose what I believe is a cleaner approach toward incorporating the needs of certain groups, which, if I may remind this House, we have already accepted are worth supporting, within the existing price-based COE system. This idea is discounts.
To be concrete, we may consider a variant of the following.
For the disabled: we offer a 100% discount on the COE. This is a full waiver, which is already in place, in the form of the Disabled Persons Scheme. For parents of two or more children, of which at least two must be below 14 years: a 10% discount for each additional child beyond the first.
Hence, a family of two children aged four and seven would receive a 10% discount, while one with three children aged between two and 13 would receive a 20% discount. A family with a five- and 15-year-old would not receive any discount, nor would single-child families. For primary caregivers of either two parents above 80 years of age, or one parent who suffers from a chronic illness that is in need of regular medical checkups, all of whom must live within the same household: a 10% discount.
The discount would apply at the time of purchase. COE prices would still follow market value thereafter. Hence, should the vehicle subsequently be sold, the benefits would remain with the family that qualified for the discount in the first place. While some have speculated, based on the experience of the electric vehicle (EV) subsidy, that rebates might simply pass on into higher COE prices, this has not been definitively proven. Perhaps more important, the much smaller segment of potential buyers which would qualify for such discounts makes it highly unlikely that they will materially move markets.
To ensure that this system caters to genuine needs while keeping the system fiscally sound, we can accompany these with some form of means testing. For example, we may apply the discount apply to families that earn below the median income threshold, or instead, we may exclude the top quintile of earners from this scheme.
Sir, although I focused on the COE, I recognise that this is, ultimately, an imperfect proxy for road usage, which is the scarce resource that is actually being rationed. The Government is moving towards a system where the costs of car ownership will be de-emphasised while that of road usage would come to the fore. This is distance-based charging, which has already been foreshadowed by the roll-out of ERP 2.0.
Should COE prices fall alongside distance-based charges, it will certainly address some concerns by some of the groups that I mentioned. But road pricing will bring its own set of fairness considerations. After all, those living further away, such as estates in Punggol or Sengkang, will suddenly be subject to a higher distance charge just to get to work due to the unanticipated change in policy.
This is a debate for another day, but I hope that the thoughts I offer today already hint at the importance of not just taking efficiency into consideration while evaluating who has the right to use our roads but that the equity considerations will come to the fore as well.
Mr Speaker: Acting Minister for Transport Jeffrey Siow.
The Acting Minister for Transport (Mr Jeffrey Siow): Mr Speaker, I want to thank the Member for his Motion and the opportunity to speak today for the third time.
COE policies have been debated extensively before in this very Chamber. Many ideas have been proposed and debated over the years. I want to take this opportunity to reiterate why we have this system and also to address some of the questions that other Members have raised during this week's Sittings on the COE.
The COE system is neither perfect nor popular. But I am glad Assoc Prof Lim agrees that there is still a need for a COE system.
We do not have enough land for every person or even every household to own a car. If every household owns a car, we will have around 1.5 million private cars on our roads, which is more than two times the current car population.
We will need far more roads. But today, 12% of our land is already occupied by roads. Any additional land take by roads will come at the expense of other meritorious needs – housing, schools, hospitals, community facilities, things that are good for our people.
This is why our approach is to focus on mass public transport, not car ownership. I am very glad that Assoc Prof Lim agrees with me on this.
We let people make their own decisions on whether they want to spend their money on buying a car and therefore bid for a COE. The COE revenues, which are about $4 billion to 6 billion a year on average, go towards subsidising public transport as well as other Government expenditures for the good of society like healthcare, education and defence. With COE revenues, we can provide every Singaporean with high quality and affordable public transport. This way, we achieve the greatest good for the greatest number.
This is the fairest approach because some people do not want to drive, some people are unable to drive and some people do not want to be burdened by a car loan. But everyone can use good public transport to get to where they want to go.
Assoc Prof Lim argues for a COE system based on needs and concepts of fairness. Other Singaporeans have shared similar perspectives with me, suggesting groups who can be treated specially or be subsidised for car ownership.
I sympathise with many of these perspectives, in particular, families with young children or those sending elderly parents to medical appointments. I know it is not easy navigating public transport with several young kids in tow or with a senior in a wheelchair, I understand that, even though it is much better now than, say, ten years ago, when the public transport system was not totally barrier-free. It is now.
I do not doubt that these families will benefit from a car. As an alternative, some of them use private hire cars or rent a car once in a while when they need it. These options are not perfect substitutes, but they come close and are more affordable than buying a car.
I have received many appeals for COE subsidies – or, as the Member proposed, discounts. But whenever we consider this, it is difficult to make the case, because rather than give one family a substantial COE subsidy, whether it is $10,000, $20,000, $30,000, we can redistribute the same amount of subsidy to benefit many more families, including those who do not want or who are not able to afford a car.
For example, we can give many more families credits to be used for transport services as we have done with the Large Families Scheme or to defray other expenditures through cash or with vouchers.
It is challenging for the Government to allocate COEs based on needs. What appears deserving to one person might not appear fair to another.
For example, if we subsidise families with children – how many children? How old should the children be? Or if we allocate based on income, we have to decide whether to do household income or personal income, or whether big households should be more deserving than small families.
And then there are the practical considerations. Do we take away the car when the need is gone?
All these ideas sound very attractive, but no matter how one draws the line, there will always be people who fall on the wrong side of the line, who believe that they are more deserving. And we will still be here, at another Parliament Sitting, debating at this late hour, on how each line has been drawn.
I understand the concerns over the rising COE prices in recent months. More potential car buyers feel priced out.
The Government has tried to stabilise the supply. We brought forward some COE quota from the future to flatten the peaks and troughs of the supply curve and we are making a one-off injection of up to about 20,000 COEs, which we announced in October 2024. In fact, the COE quarterly supply has doubled since 2023.
But COE prices have continued to rise because of demand. Electric vehicles, especially those from China, are being brought into Singapore cheaply. This means more money being put into COE bids.
Some people have suggested that PHC companies are responsible for driving up COE prices. Less than 10% of bids have been won by car leasing companies this year. Even if we remove all of the PHC bids, the price of the marginal bidders below the clearing price would not be much lower.
Should we have a separate COE category for PHCs or do we move them to Cat E as the Member suggested? Well, a separate category means we have to take quota away from Cat A and Cat B. How much would enough? Would it be more than 10% or less than 10%? If more than 10%, there would be fewer COEs for Cat A and Cat B than today. If less than 10%, there will be fewer PHCs to meet customer demand. And what would happen is there would be higher PHC fares and higher rentals for drivers. This will disadvantage Singaporeans who cannot afford a car and who can only rely on PHCs to get around.
Ultimately, we all want to do better for Singapore and Singaporeans. I share the same broader goal as Assoc Prof Lim of expanding connectivity for all Singaporeans. Where we differ is in how to achieve that.
For this Government, we make sure that we deliver the greatest good for the greatest number. We do so by investing heavily in our public transport system. The Government spends some $2 billion on operational subsidies to keep our bus and train services running every year. We build new train lines that serve millions of journeys each day. We build covered linkways, upgrade our footpaths and expand our cycling paths to make first- and last-mile journeys of public transport commuters more convenient and comfortable.
The COE system should therefore be seen in this broader context. A needs-based system for the COE sounds attractive, but in practice, it is subjective, divisive and benefits too few. The market mechanism is transparent and allows the Government to channel COE revenues to the benefit of the wider public.
This is not the perfect system, but it is the fairest and most effective way to allocate a scarce resource in Singapore's context. [Applause.]
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 2(3)(a), I wish to inform hon Members that the Sitting tomorrow will commence at 11.30 am. Order. Order.
Adjourned accordingly at 8.25 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":"Matter Raised On Adjournment Motion","questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Anti-bullying Reporting and Investigating Protocols","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for Education (a) whether an annual School Safety Scorecard per school will be published with anonymised bullying report totals, substantiation percentages, numbers of suspensions, transfers and serious sanctions; (b) whether a national anonymous anti-bullying reporting line will be established with trained responders; and (c) whether the Ministry will mandate minimum anti-bullying policy standards across all schools.
36 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Education with regard to ongoing measures to address concerns associated with bullying or violence in schools (a) whether the Ministry works with external agencies and their experts to strengthen trauma-informed and victim-centric practices in schools, including with professionals with expertise outside of traditional educational settings; and (b) if so, how is the Ministry working with such agencies and their experts.
37 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Education when incidents of bullying or violence are reported in schools (a) whether there are investigation protocols for educators; (b) whether these are developed with child safety and violence-prevention experts; and (c) whether they can be published to enhance public awareness and understanding.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Ministry of Education will provide an oral reply to this Parliamentary Question, together with other questions which have been filed on this topic, at the next available opportunity.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of GRaduate Industry Traineeships on Graduates' Placement, Development and Earning Potential","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how is the traineeship allowance of $1,800 to $2,400 for the GRaduate Industry Traineeships Programme determined; and (b) how does this compare with average salaries in the past year for fresh graduates from universities, polytechnics, ITEs and other educational institutions.
46 Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what are the mean and median starting salaries of graduates who have taken part in the SGUnited Traineeship Programme and (i) who are subsequently employed by their host organisation or (ii) found employment elsewhere; and (b) how do these figures compare against those of graduates who found employment without having taken part in the Programme.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Member may refer to the oral reply that will be given on 23 September 2025 in response to related Parliamentary Questions on graduate employment and \tGRaduate Industry Traineeships Programme. [Please refer to \"Reasons for Lower Proportion of Fresh Graduates in Full-time Employment and Extent of Help from GRaduate Industry Traineeship Programme\", Official Report, 23 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 3, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Contractual Obligations for Hawkers in Social Enterprise Hawker Centres to Provide Free Meals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the NEA permits social enterprise hawker centre (SEHC) operators to include contractual requirements for hawkers to provide a set number of free meals; and (b) whether NEA will provide guidance on the appropriateness of such practices in future contracts.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: This question will be addressed at the next Sitting on 24 September 2025, together with similar Parliamentary Questions, for a more holistic reply. [Please refer to \"Provision of Affordable Meals and Other Contractual Obligations at Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centres\", Official Report, 24 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 4, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of US Tariffs on Singapore Companies and Economy, Update on Negotiations and Support for Key Sectors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what measurable impact has the 2025 tariffs announced by the US had on Singapore companies and the Singapore economy so far; (b) what is the latest update on negotiations with the US, whether on industry-specific measures or otherwise; and (d) what measures are being implemented to support key sectors such as pharmaceuticals and electronics.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Singapore is currently subject to a United States (US) baseline tariff rate of 10%, which was announced on 2 April 2025 and took effect on 9 April 2025 (eastern daylight time). The US has also imposed section 232 sectoral tariffs on automotives at 25%; steel and aluminium at 50%; and copper at 50%, which apply to most economies, including Singapore.
There are signs that these tariffs have partly affected our domestic exports, with our domestic exports to the US declining by 28% year-on-year between April and August 2025.
Notwithstanding this, Singapore's economy held up in the first half of 2025, growing by 4.3% year-on-year, on the back of a temporary boost from front-loading activities in the region, ahead of the implementation of tariff measures by the US. Singapore's gross domestic product (GDP) growth for 2025 is forecast to range from 1.5% to 2.5%.
The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) expects global growth and hence Singapore's GDP growth to moderate in the second half of 2025 as the temporary boost from front-loading activities dissipates and the US' tariffs on its trading partners take effect. There also remains significant uncertainty in the global economy, including the possibility that section 232 sectoral tariffs on additional goods, such as pharmaceuticals and semiconductors, could be announced soon. MTI will continue to monitor developments closely.
The Singapore Economic Resilience Taskforce (SERT) will support businesses and workers in navigating the current uncertainties and challenges, and to plan ahead to secure our long-term economic future. SERT had announced the Business Adaptation Grant to support enterprises in evaluating the impact of tariffs, supply chain optimisation and reconfiguration for a time-bound period of two years. In consultation with tripartite partners under SERT, the GRaduate Industry Traineeships programme will also be launched to support fresh graduates in gaining industry-relevant experience and skills and facilitate their transition into full-time employment. We are closely assessing the situation and stand ready to provide further support, including to companies in key sectors, as needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Post-incident Support for Scam Victims beyond Public Education Workshops and Fund Recovery Efforts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs what are the most recent measures that the Ministry and its related institutions have implemented to support scam victims post-incident beyond public education workshops and fund recovery efforts.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Police have developed a resource guide on what victims should do if they fall prey to scams and the various community support they can seek out. The resource guide is available in the four official languages and is progressively being delivered to all households. An online copy of the guide is available on the Singapore Police Force and ScamShield websites.
The Police also have a Victim Care Cadre Programme. In certain cases, or upon request by the scam victim, the Police may assign Victim Care Officers (VCOs), who are volunteers, to provide psychological first aid and crisis intervention for the victim. VCOs may also direct the victims to community and professional resources for longer-term psychological and financial support.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Scam Losses, Scam Typology, Median Age of Victims and Time Taken for Freezing of Funds Following Restriction Orders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) for each quarter from 2023 to 2025, what is the total amount of scam losses by typology; (b) what is the median age of victims; (c) what proportion of scam losses have been recovered; and (d) what has been the median time taken to freeze funds after issuance of restriction orders by the Police.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Member may refer to the Scam and Cybercrime Briefs published half-yearly on the Police website for the amounts lost to the top 10 most commonly reported scam types and the proportion of scam victims by age group.
In the first half of this year, the median age of scam victims was 43 years old. During the same period, the Police recovered more than $56.7 million of scam losses. The Police do not track the time taken to freeze funds in a bank account after the issuance of an order to the local banks. Typically, this is within hours or a day.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Fresh Graduates Employed on Fixed-term Contracts with Durations of One Year or Less","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry tracks the number and proportion of fresh graduates employed via fixed-term contracts with a duration of one year or less; (b) if so, over each of the past five years, what is the proportion of such fresh graduates from (i) ITE (ii) polytechnics (iii) autonomous universities and (iv) private universities; and (c) if not, why not.
Mr Desmond Lee: My response will also cover matters raised in the questions by Ms Hany Soh, which are scheduled for subsequent Sittings.
The Graduate Employment Survey (GES) tracks both permanent employment as well as temporary employment. Temporary employment includes casual and fixed-term contracts of less than one year. Contracts of one year or more are included under permanent employment.
Over the last five years, an average of nine in 10 employed graduates were in full-time employment. Amongst them around nine in 10 were in permanent roles. The proportion of full-time employed graduates in temporary roles remained low and stable at one in 10. The proportion of such graduates by institution-type varied and was about 5% for autonomous university graduates, about 20% for polytechnic graduates, about 10% for Institute of Technical Education graduates and about 20% for private education institution graduates. Close to half of polytechnic graduates cited further studies as the reason for choosing temporary work.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strategies for Improving Employment Outcomes for Youths and Proportion of Graduating Students Taking Up Contract Roles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what strategies are being deployed to improve employment outcomes for youths, particularly those who are not in employment, education or training (NEET); (b) how does the Ministry intend to re-engage this group effectively; (c) what is the current proportion of graduating students taking up contract roles rather than permanent employment; and (d) whether this trend has shifted in recent years.
Dr Tan See Leng: The rate of youths who are not in employment, education or training (NEET) in Singapore has remained low at 4.1%, representing 16,900 youths in 2024. The rate is also much lower compared to other developed countries, such as Sweden at 5.5% and the United Kingdom at 13%. This reflects the strong engagement of youths in both the labour market and education or training pathways in Singapore.
Throughout their schooling years, students receive education and career guidance (ECG) by ECG counsellors to help them discover their strengths, interests and sense of purpose, and thus facilitate their transition into the workforce. NEET youths who wish to return to education can reach out to the respective educational institutions or to the ECG Centre @ MOE for ECG advice. All Institutes of Higher Learning extend their career services to graduates and recent alumni.
In addition to ECG, youths can tap on a range of career matching and reskilling programmes and services offered by Workforce Singapore (WSG) and its partners. This includes career advisory and coaching services provided by WSG and NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute (e2i), which can be complemented with industry insights offered by WSG's Volunteer Career Advisors. Youths can look for job opportunities on WSG's MyCareersFuture portal, utilising its CareersFinders feature to explore potential careers and upskilling options.
We recognise that some NEET youths face complex difficulties. The Ministry of Social and Family Development and the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth have a network of support programmes to support youths with varying needs. This includes the Mentoring SG movement, which provides mentorship and can guide NEET youths to navigate life transitions and challenges. Families facing social or financial challenges may also seek help from Family Service Centres or Social Service Offices.
The Member may refer to the reply to be given on 23 September on graduate employment and the GRaduate Industry Traineeships programme for the statistics on graduating students taking up contract roles. [Please refer to \"Reasons for Lower Proportion of Fresh Graduates in Full-time Employment and Extent of Help from GRaduate Industry Traineeship Programme\", Official Report, 23 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 3, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Enrolment, Graduation, Non-completion and Employment of Students under ITE Work-Study Diploma Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"66 Mr David Hoe asked the Minister for Education for each ITE Work-Study Diploma intake since 2018, what are the (i) enrolment and non-completion rates (ii) graduation rates (iii) share in full-time employment breakdown by sectors within 6 and 12 months of completion, median starting pay and 12-month employer retention rates (iv) share who progressed to polytechnic or university and (v) measures to support non-completers to re-enter training or work.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Institute of Technical Education (ITE) Work-Study Diploma programme is an apprenticeship-based upskilling pathway. Trainees receive classroom training from ITE lecturers, but they are hired by the participating companies as full-time employees and also benefit from on-the-job training by the employers. Since the programme started, the number of trainees admitted into ITE's Work-Study Diploma has increased significantly, from 100 in 2018 to around 1,300 in 2024. Completion rates have remained stable and high at around 80%.
The Work-Study Diploma programme's employment outcomes have also been positive. Based on our recent surveys of graduates six months after graduation, full-time employment rates have been consistently high across sectors, with around nine in 10 graduates in full-time employment. Around seven in 10 stayed with the company that hired and trained them. The median monthly salaries of Work-Study Diploma graduates six months post-graduation were comparable to that of full-time Polytechnic diploma graduates, at around $2,900. Taken together, this shows that most Work-Study Diploma graduates stay in the role that they were trained for and enjoy competitive salaries. Around one in 10 progressed directly to our universities' degree and polytechnics' post-diploma programmes.
ITE supports learners who do not complete the Work-Study Diploma with career counselling services and support, including the option to take up other educational pathways, such as the Higher Nitec qualification, where applicable. These learners can also re-apply in subsequent Work-Study intakes to continue their learning, with their earlier completed modules recognised for related courses or work first before continuing their upskilling journey subsequently.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Fires Related to Power-assisted Bicycles and Mobility Aids, and Encouraging Installation of Home Fire Alarm Devices in Public Rental Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"67 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs for each year in the last five years (a) how many fire incidents are related to (i) personal mobility devices (PMD) (ii) power-assisted bicycles (PAB) and (iii) personal mobility aids (PMA); and (b) how many of these incidents involved non-UL-2272 or non-EN-15194 certified, modified, or illegally imported devices.
68 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the number of existing public rental HDB flats that have installed Home Fire Alarm Devices (HFADs) under the Assistance Scheme; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider extending the HFAD Assistance Scheme to provide free installation of HFADs for (i) needy occupants of purchase HDB flats and (ii) seniors living in HDB Community Care Apartments.
Mr K Shanmugam: The number of fires in Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates has generally been on a decline in the last five years, from 939 in 2020 to 803 in 2024. That said, every fire is one too many. It causes major disruptions to those affected, and loss of assets and even lives. Even more unfortunate is the fact that most of the fires could have been prevented.
One significant area of concern is the fire risk posed by Active Mobility Devices (AMDs). Over the last five years, 187 fires, or about 4% of fires in HDB estates, involved Active Mobility Devices (AMDs). Of these, about 46% involved Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs), 42% involved Power-Assisted Bicycles (PABs) and 12% involved Personal Mobility Aids (PMAs). About 98, or about half, of these AMD-related fires occurred during the charging of the devices.
Although such fires form a small proportion of fires in HDB estates, AMD-related fires are typically more severe and more likely to result in fatalities and injuries.
We are especially concerned about non-compliant AMDs. Just looking at the past three years, 77, or 72%, of the AMD-related fires in HDB estates involved PMDs and PABs which were either non-UL2272 compliant or non-EN15194 compliant, or had been modified, rendering them non-compliant.
That is why the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has stepped up regulatory measures and enforcement against the sale or use of non-compliant AMDs. Since June 2021, businesses and individuals must obtain LTA's approval to import PABs and PMDs into Singapore. The devices must meet the prescribed technical and safety requirements, before they can be used on our public paths and roads.
LTA also conducts regular enforcement operations against non-compliant AMDs on public paths, as well as retailers selling non-compliant AMDs. Between 2020 and 2024, LTA detected more than 6,000 cases of non-compliant AMDs on public paths and roads, and more than 100 violations by errant retailers.
LTA, together with the relevant agencies, will continue to review existing guidelines on the safe storage and charging of AMDs. Currently, AMDs do not require special charging infrastructure and can be charged using standard wall sockets found in homes.
We are considering tougher enforcement action to send a stronger deterrent signal that the use or sale of non-compliant AMDs poses significant safety risks. These individuals are knowingly endangering not just the lives of their family, but the lives of their neighbours as well.
We have also been doing more to help homeowners better respond to fires. One way is to provide early warning whenever a fire breaks out. In 2018, we made it mandatory for all new residential premises to have Home Fire Alarm Devices (HFADs). This applies also to Community Care Apartments, which were all built after the regulation came into effect.
For existing residential premises, we took a risk-calibrated approach and only mandated it for homes which are carrying out fire safety related addition and alteration works. This was to strike a balance in ensuring the adoption of fire safety equipment, but in a practical manner. Nonetheless, we strongly encourage all homeowners to install HFADs and have put in place several schemes to support certain groups in doing so. For HDB public rental flats, more than 80% of them already have HFADs installed and HDB will progressively install HFADs in the remaining 20%. The installation of HFADs is done at no charge to the tenants.
In 2024, the Ministry of National Development (MND) expanded the Enhancement for Active Seniors programme to include the installation of HFADs. Seniors can enjoy a subsidy of up to 95% to install HFADs in their homes.
HFADs are also installed as part of fire safety works, under the Home Improvement Programme, in cases where fire-rated doors are installed. As of June 2025, HFADs have been installed in about 191,000 HDB flats, or 17%, of all HDB flats. Of these, 74,000 flats, or 39%, were built prior to 2018.
We will continue to review the fire safety of our HDB flats. However, we do not see a need for HFADs at HDB corridors, or for centralised building fire management systems, at this juncture.
We have also implemented measures to better equip homeowners to respond to fires, by making fire extinguishers more widely and easily accessible. Since October 2023, the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) has progressively installed fire extinguishers at Lifesavers' Emergency Points, under a joint initiative with Temasek Foundation, HDB and Town Councils. The fire extinguishers are co-located with existing automated external defibrillators (AEDs) at the lift lobbies of one in every two residential HDB blocks. To date, more than 90% of all targeted HDB blocks have been equipped and we aim to complete the roll-out by 2028. At this juncture, we are focused on completing the roll-out to the remaining blocks. We will assess whether there is a need to do more thereafter.
While the Government will continue to review our policies, programmes and regulations, the best defence against a home fire is the homeowner ourselves. SCDF continues to work with Government agencies, including LTA, HDB and the People's Association (PA), as well as other stakeholders, such as the Town Councils, and community partners, to strengthen public education and outreach on fire safety and emergency preparedness.
Through the SCDF's Responders Plus Programme, residents are offered free hands-on training on the use of fire extinguishers, CPR and AEDs. In addition, the SCDF and the PA's Community Emergency and Engagement Committees will continue to conduct block evacuation exercises on a regular basis.
With support from SCDF and PA, the National Fire Safety and Emergency Preparedness Council (NFEC) will launch a residential fire safety campaign, \"Better Awareness, Safer Homes\" to increase public awareness on the top causes of residential fires and encourage homeowners to evaluate potential home fire hazards. The Active Mobility Fire Safety Taskforce, co-chaired by LTA and SCDF, will also step-up public education under the \"Be Device-Safe\" programme, on the dangers of using non-compliant devices and the importance of safe charging.
Fire safety is a collective responsibility. We must work together, each doing our part, to keep our homes fire-safe.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Significance of Closure of ASEAN Engagement Office by US Government","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"69 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs in light of the closure of the ASEAN Engagement Office by the US government, what is the Ministry's assessment of (a) the significance of this measure on the US-ASEAN relationship; (b) what can ASEAN do to improve the US-ASEAN relationship; and (c) what can Singapore do to improve the US-Singapore relationship.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the United States (US) enjoy a broad, substantive and mutually beneficial relationship, built up over decades and across both democrat and republican administrations. ASEAN and the US have worked hard to promote dialogue, cooperate substantively and build trust. In 2027, we will commemorate 50 years of ASEAN-US dialogue relations and will use this opportunity to further expand our cooperation.
According to the US State Department, its internal reorganisation does not change the longstanding partnership between ASEAN and the US. Economic activities between ASEAN and the US already support more than 625,000 American jobs. The US continues to be ASEAN's top source of foreign investment, with a total foreign direct investment (FDI) stock of $798.8 billion in 2023. This is more than what the US has invested in China, India, Japan and South Korea combined. At a meeting between the foreign ministers of ASEAN and the US in July 2025, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio reaffirmed that ASEAN continued to be the \"pre-eminent mechanism\" by which the US engaged the region.
Every change of administration presents opportunities for collaboration in new and practical areas. Earlier this year, ASEAN and the US endorsed the ASEAN-US Responsible AI Roadmap, which provides a guide for ASEAN governments to operationalise responsible AI. This helps to ensure that ASEAN as a region remains a secure and competitive destination for US firms to do business in.
On cyber scams, US firms, like Meta, are working with regulators in the region to tackle this scourge by improving verification processes and strengthening cyber defences. We can look at ways to expand such cooperation to include other private sector players and share expertise at the government-to-government level.
Singapore's relations with the US are also substantive, longstanding and enjoy bipartisan support. We have been a consistent and reliable partner of the US for decades. Our cooperation spans many domains, including defence, security, economic and people-to-people ties. This deep reservoir of trust has allowed us to expand collaboration to newer areas, such as artificial intelligence, biotechnology, cybersecurity, outer space, civilian nuclear technology and quantum technology.
We continue to engage the Trump administration. My Cabinet colleagues and I have had good interactions with our US counterparts. These have been reported on in the media so I will not detail them. Specifically on tariff negotiations, we are in preliminary discussions with the US to explore practical ways to facilitate our pharmaceutical and semiconductor exports to the US. The Deputy Prime Minister Gan has had several virtual engagements with Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick to this end.
We also continue to cultivate good relationships in the US Congress. I was pleased to learn that the US Congressional Singapore Caucus Co-chairs recently took the initiative to introduce a resolution in the house of representatives, in conjunction with SG60, to express continued support for the bilateral relationship. Through our sustained engagements with the US, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will continue to foster greater appreciation of Singapore and our relationship with the US.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Evaluation of Inclusive Support Programme Pilot in Preschools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"70 Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry can provide an update on the evaluation of the Inclusive Support Programme (InSP) pilot in preschools; (b) what factors are taken into consideration when evaluating the effectiveness of the InSP; and (c) what is the timeline to scale up the InSP to more preschools if the pilot is successful.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The evaluation of the Inclusive Support Programme (InSP) pilot in preschools is nearing completion. The evaluation assessed the impact of InSP on the learning and social development of both children with developmental needs and typically developing children as well as the impact on caregivers of all children. More details about the evaluation and plans for InSP will be announced soon.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing Regulation of Integrated Shield Plans to Align with National Healthcare Priorities and Patient Protection","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"73 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the Government has any plans to disallow Integrated Shield Plan (IP) insurers from offering \"as-charged\" or no-limit coverage for non-cancer treatments; and (b) if not, why not.
74 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether existing laws preventing profiteering and anti-competitive behaviours, such as collusion and price-fixing, among healthcare service providers and private insurers are sufficient; and (b) how does our regulatory framework compare to other developed countries.
75 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the Government has any plans to further regulate the use of panel specialists by Integrated Shield Plan (IP) insurers, such as by mandating a minimum number of specialists per medical specialty or the contract durations of panel specialists; and (b) if not, why not.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: These questions are regarding the current state of private healthcare and insurance. Insurers, private hospitals, and providers have got themselves tied up in a knot, resulting in escalating private hospital bills, rising premiums and more safeguards introduced to the claims process. The concerns raised by Members point back to this deeper issue, which I will address in detail at the subsequent Sitting, together with other similar Parliamentary Questions filed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Use of Facial Recognition Technology to Identify and Stop Perpetrators of Petty Crimes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"77 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the police deploy facial recognition technology to identify perpetrators of petty crimes, such as bicycle theft; and (b) what impediments exist in holding such perpetrators accountable once identified.
Mr K Shanmugam: To the extent that there are closed-circuit televisions (CCTVs) available where the crimes are committed, including petty theft, the Police may use facial recognition technology to try to identify the culprits and follow-up as appropriate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Detection of Illegal Purchases of Nicotine Pouches by Singaporeans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"79 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the Government has intercepted illegal purchases of nicotine pouches or snus (powdered smokeless tobacco) via the SnusAsia website that specifies its sale to Singapore; (b) if so, how many of such pouches have been intercepted to date; and (c) what measures are in place to control access to nicotine pouches or snus in Singapore, especially by our youths.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Health Sciences Authority (HSA) has not detected any cases where prohibited tobacco products were purchased from SnusAsia website and shipped to Singapore. HSA is working with the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA), to block SnusAsia website as it is in breach of the ban on tobacco advertisements under Tobacco (Control of Advertisement and Sales) Act.
HSA monitors the online sale of prohibited tobacco products closely and collaborates with IMDA, local e-commerce and social media platforms to take down online listings that are selling these products to Singapore. The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority detects and seizes illegal imports of prohibited tobacco products at the checkpoints.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Excessive Price Pass-through to Essential Goods from Global Supply Chain Disruptions and Rising Rentals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"80 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how is the Ministry working with retailers and suppliers to ensure essential goods remain affordable for Singaporeans; and (b) what safeguards exist to prevent excessive price pass-through from global supply chain disruptions and rising rental costs.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: As a small and open economy that imports most of its supplies, Singapore is subject to global economic forces and supply chain disruptions. To mitigate against these, the Government's approach is to diversify our import sources. We achieve this through various strategies, including maintaining a comprehensive network of Free Trade Agreements, to facilitate access to a broad range of goods and services across different markets and provide consumers with more choices. We also monitor for and take robust enforcement action against anti-competitive practices. This ensures that businesses compete and price their goods fairly.
The Government recognises Singaporeans' concerns about higher household expenses. That is why Budget 2025 introduced additional support measures, such as the recent $800 in Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers for all Singaporean households and additional U-Save rebates for eligible HDB households to cope with their utilities expenses. Furthermore, the Government also provided the one-off commemorative SG60 vouchers, worth $600, to adult Singaporeans and $800 to older seniors, that will also offer some cost relief.
We are continuing our joint efforts with businesses to provide affordable choices to Singaporeans and help consumers make more informed purchasing decisions. Since 1 September, major supermarket operators – NTUC FairPrice, Sheng Siong, and Prime Supermarket – have launched a pilot to display unit prices for selected grocery items. Cold Storage and Giant supermarkets will come on board next month on 31 October. This initiative helps consumers easily compare prices across different brands and package sizes to find the best-value buys and deals, and to stretch their dollar. The insights gained from this pilot will inform the Government's plans to roll out unit pricing more widely.
Supermarket operators also have various initiatives to keep prices of essential items affordable. For instance, FairPrice's Everyday Low Price campaign offers consumers over 500 products and there are regular discounts for Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) cardholders and seniors. In addition, many businesses are providing SG60 discounts for food and other essential goods to mark Singapore's 60th.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tracking Tenure Duration and Ethnicity of Tenants for Open-market Rental of HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"81 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether HDB systematically tracks tenure duration and ethnicity of tenants for open-market rentals; (b) if not, how does HDB ensure rentals remain short-term and do not significantly alter block or precinct ethnic composition; and (c) if so, whether violations of the Ethnic Integration Policy have been detected.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP), seeks to ensure that our Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates remain diverse and inclusive, and applies to the sale and purchase of all HDB flats, as well as the allocation of HDB public rental flats. For EIP-constrained flat owners with extenuating circumstances, HDB has been exercising flexibility and provides a range of assistance measures on a case-by-case basis.
Tenants who rent HDB flats on the open market are not subject to EIP. The majority of these tenants are non-citizens from diverse ethnic backgrounds and countries. Their stays are typically temporary in nature and do not affect the ethnic proportions in our public housing estates over the long term.
To prevent the formation of foreigner enclaves and maintain the Singaporean character of our HDB heartlands, HDB introduced the non-Citizen quota in 2014, which caps the number of flats that can be wholly rented out to non-Malaysian non-citizens within each block and neighbourhood.
Eligible HDB flat owners must have fulfilled the minimum occupation period before renting out their whole flats. They are also required to seek HDB's approval and meet the non-Citizen quota. The rental period is capped at two years when owners rent out their flats to non-Malaysian non-citizens. If irregularities are detected, HDB will take appropriate enforcement action against the flat owner.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support to Workers Engaged on Contracts for Service with Non-renewals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"82 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support scheme (SJSS) will be extended to workers engaged on contracts for service with non-renewals; and (b) if not, whether the Ministry will consider including such workers under the SJSS given their vulnerability to job insecurity.
Dr Tan See Leng: Ms Elysa Chen has filed a related question for the Sitting on 23 September 2025. We will respond to these questions together. [Please refer to \"Data on Individuals Assisted by SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support Scheme Since Launch\", Official Report, 23 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 3, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Avoiding \"Long Weekends\" when Scheduling Polling Day for General Elections","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"83 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in view of the lowest voter turnout for general elections since 1968 (a) whether the Government will commit not to hold polling day for a future election over a \"long weekend\"; and (b) how many absentee voters in the 2025 General Election have restored their names to the Registers of Electors (i) via Singpass and (ii) via appointment at the Elections Department.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): On the date for Polling Day, I do not think it is possible nor in the interest of Singapore to commit to not holding an election on a particular date or during a particular period. The date depends very much on the exigencies of the situation at the time.
On Mr Pritam Singh's second question on the number of restored voters, as of 1 September 2025, 99,140 non-voters from the General Election 2025 have restored their names, which is more than half of the total number of non-voters. About 97% of those who restored their names did so via Singpass, with the remainder doing so in person at community centres/clubs, ServiceSG Centres and the Elections Department office. For those who have not restored their names, I encourage them to do so early so that they can vote at the next election.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for Non-detection of Overstayer who Surrendered Passport in 1996 and Measures to Prevent Similar Incidents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"84 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) why a woman who surrendered her passport to ICA in 1996 was not monitored more closely, allowing her to overstay for more than 28 years; (b) what specific vulnerabilities enabled her to live in Singapore and for her daughter to apply for permanent residency without detection; and (c) what new measures have been implemented to prevent a similar incident.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) takes a very serious view of overstayers and those who harbour them. ICA conducts regular ground operations to try to detect and enforce against overstaying. But sometimes, deliberate overstayers manage to evade the enforcement actions.
Specific to this case involving Yu Zefang, which I understand the Member is referring to, she deliberately maintained a very low profile in Singapore, which made it difficult for the agencies to detect her. She did not maintain a fixed place of stay, did not engage in any formal employment, did not have any local bank account and did not utilise any Government services, such as public healthcare, which would have required her identity to be authenticated.
ICA is looking into the circumstances around her daughter's Permanent Residence (PR) application. We will take action if there was any fraud committed in the application or if other immigration offences, such as harbouring of overstayers, are disclosed.
ICA will continue to try to improve its measures to detect and arrest overstayers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inclusion of Expected Child in Calculation of Per Capita Income for Determining Rental Rates under Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"85 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry can consider including an expected child who is past 24 weeks in gestational age in the calculation of the per capita income (PCI) for the purpose of determining rental rates under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme in recognition of upcoming financial responsibilities associated with childbirth and caring for an infant.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS) offers a subsidised housing option for eligible families, including expectant parents, while they are awaiting completion of their new Housing and Development Board flat. A monthly household income ceiling of $7,000 was implemented in August 2021 to target support at families who are less able to afford renting on the open market. PPHS rents are not differentiated based on per capita income.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reducing Civil Service Job Postings That Focus on Academic Requirements to Emphasise Skills-based Hiring","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"86 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Public Service Division will consider reducing the number of job postings that focus on formal academic requirements to lead by example in implementing skills-based hiring.\n
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The Public Service supports skills-based hiring and most of the Public Service job advertisements today do not include specific academic requirements. Agencies will consider candidates holistically, based on their skills, competencies, work experience and alignment with the job's requirements.
However, for certain jobs, such as those in specialised or technical fields, such as accountancy, engineering and legal services, candidates may still be required to acquire the relevant professional qualifications to perform their job effectively. In such cases, agencies would explain the need for such requirements.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Set-up of Smaller Satellite HDB Service Office in Hougang","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"89 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB can consider setting up a smaller satellite service office in the Hougang area for the convenience of residents living in the vicinity who require physical face-to-face services with staff and beyond e-kiosk services, after the closure of its office at Block 814 Hougang Central.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) Hougang Branch was closed on 1 September 2025 to facilitate the development of the mixed commercial and residential site at Hougang Ave 10 and Hougang Central.
To ensure continued service for residents, HDB has implemented several measures.
First, HDB has opened a 24-hour e-Lobby at the ground floor of Block 806 Hougang Central. HDB has also set up e-Lobbies in Bukit Panjang in 2018 and Queenstown in 2022. The e-Lobby is equipped with self-help machines, such as HDB's e-Service kiosks, for residents to access HDB services and complete transactions, such as mortgage and rental payments. These services are also available on the HDB InfoWEB and Mobile@HDB app.
Second, to guide residents in using these e-services, as a transitional measure, HDB has stationed a service ambassador at the e-Lobby until October 2025. We will continue to monitor the situation and may consider extending the availability of the service ambassador, if there is a need to do so.
Third, for complex transactions or transactions requiring wet-ink signatures to be made in person, residents can book an appointment at the Sengkang Branch located at Rivervale Plaza, which is accessible by train and multiple bus services.
We recognise that some residents may have accessibility needs or face exceptional circumstances. For these residents, they may reach out to HDB directly to be served in-person at the Hougang e-Lobby.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Causes for Increase in Outrage of Modesty Cases in 1H2025 and Longer-term Trends of Voyeurism Identified","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"91 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what factors has the Ministry identified as causes for an over 20% year-on-year increase in the number of outrage of modesty cases in the first half of 2025; (b) what longer-term trends of voyeurism has the Ministry identified; and (c) whether the Ministry will be taking steps to enhance protection of women and minors against such crimes.
Mr K Shanmugam: In the first half of 2025, there was a 21.2% increase in outrage of modesty (OM) cases and a 2.3% decrease in voyeurism cases compared to the same period last year. More than half of the OM cases involved offenders known to the victims. For OM cases involving offenders not known to the victims, the top location of concern is the public transport network. More details are available in the Police's Mid-Year Crime Brief 2025.
We have worked with partners on a range of initiatives to prevent sexual offending. For example, school and community counsellors are trained to identify youths exhibiting inappropriate sexual behaviours and to intervene early. The Police have also been working with public transport operators to provide crime advisories in our public transport network.
Vigilance by members of the public is crucial to tackling OM and voyeurism. Anyone who detects suspicious behaviours should report them immediately to the premises' staff or the Police. Specific to the public transport network, we have the \"Riders-on-Watch\" interest group, under which more than 14,000 commuters serve as \"eyes and ears\" on the ground during their daily commute. We encourage more members of the public to come forward to join this group and partner the Police in preventing, detecting and deterring such crimes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2004, and Addressing Maintenance Issues in Ageing Condominium Developments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"93 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the current status of the review on the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2004; (b) what measures are being considered to address the issues that ageing condominiums face in maintenance; and (c) whether there are plans to require the collection of adequate sinking funds so that condominium facilities are safely maintained.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: This response will also address similar Parliamentary Questions raised by Mr Yip Hon Weng and Ms Valerie Lee for subsequent Sittings.
The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) is currently reviewing the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act to strengthen self-governance and support effective estate maintenance. In particular, BCA is studying ways to address ageing infrastructure issues faced by older condominiums, as well as inadequate sinking funds to maintain or upgrade such infrastructure. The review will be completed by the first half of next year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Structuring Carbon Relief Allowances to Support Emissions-intensive Trade-exposed Companies and Retain Jobs for Singaporeans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"94 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Ministry can consider ways of structuring the carbon relief allowances provided under the transition framework to provide support for emissions-intensive trade-exposed companies, such that eligible companies can retain jobs for Singaporeans and continue to value-add to our economy.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: This is indeed our approach. Allowances, when given judiciously, provide time for companies in emissions-intensive and trade-exposed (EITE) sectors to make an orderly transition, and ensure that Singapore continues to be an attractive location for them to provide good jobs for Singaporeans.
The alternative would be to risk losing these companies to jurisdictions with a lower or no carbon price. Beyond their direct value-add and jobs, many of these companies are part of integrated value chains in Singapore, which means any exit would have a consequential impact on other companies in Singapore, including local suppliers and service providers.
We are committed to helping companies transition and continue their economic activities here and add value to our economy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Animals and Birds Act, and Recommendations in White Paper on Strengthening Protections for Animal Welfare","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"96 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry will consider the 15 recommendations in the 2025 White Paper on Strengthening Protections for Animal Welfare jointly submitted by ACRES and SPCA; and (b) if so, what is the expected timeline for reviewing and implementing the recommendations across the four key areas of animal welfare education, legislation and policies, companion animal protection and wildlife protection.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Animals and Birds Act 1965 (ABA) safeguards against animal cruelty and abuse. Under the current ABA, the maximum penalty for a cruelty offence is higher than that for a welfare offence. Repeat offenders are also liable for enhanced punishment. Where acts of cruelty are particularly aggravated, the prosecution will highlight this to the Courts to take into account for sentencing.
National Parks Board (NParks) has started a comprehensive review to ensure ABA remains effective in deterring acts of animal cruelty and abuse. This includes reviewing the penalty framework, such as imprisonment terms, fines and disqualification orders, for animal welfare offences and enforcement powers for better animal welfare and management.
The review currently does not include proposals to prevent the posting of animal abuse content online or increase collaboration on enforcement with animal welfare groups. To reduce disamenities caused by irresponsible pet ownership, NParks has launched initiatives, such as cat licensing, under the Cat Management Framework and the pet ownership course.
We will continue to take a collaborative approach in this review. For instance, Minister of State Alvin Tan had engaged Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (ACRES) and Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) in July on their White Paper on Strengthening Protections for Animal Welfare. We agreed that while some recommendations will be challenging to implement due to the trade-offs, we could adopt some recommendations as part of the ABA review and further evaluate others with partners. NParks will continue to engage stakeholders, such as animal welfare groups, pet business owners and vets, to ensure that all views are considered. NParks aims to start public consultation on the draft Bill by around end-2026.
NParks will continue to investigate feedback on animal welfare and cruelty thoroughly. For instance, in the recent cases involving community cats in Yishun and Punggol, NParks interviewed key witnesses, reviewed CCTV footage and carried out post-mortem examination for the Yishun community cat and found that the cases were likely the result of vehicular accidents.
NParks will take firm enforcement action, considering factors, such as severity of the offence and whether it is a repeat offender. In line with its enforcement efforts, NParks also works with animal welfare group partners to increase education and outreach efforts to raise awareness of responsible pet ownership and the consequences of animal cruelty.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reason for Engine Capacity, Maximum Power and Open Market Value Thresholds in Qualifying for COE Premium and ARF Waiver under Disabled Persons Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"98 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the justification for engine capacity, maximum power and open market value thresholds in qualifying for COE premium and Additional Registration Fee (ARF) waiver under the Disabled Persons Scheme; and (b) whether these criteria are subject to appeal, especially where the disability justifies a larger-capacity or higher-value vehicle.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Disabled Persons Scheme (DPS) exempts eligible persons with disabilities (PwDs) who cannot take public transport from paying premiums for the Certificates of Entitlement and additional registration fees when they purchase a car for the primary purpose of travelling to and from work.
Cars supported under DPS must have an engine capacity not exceeding 1,600cc, maximum power output not exceeding 97kW (130 brake horsepower) and open market value not exceeding $20,000. These specifications are set to support eligible PwDs to purchase an affordable car which can meet their work-related commuting needs, while ensuring fiscal prudence.
We can consider appeals on a case-by-case basis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing Merchant Eligibility Criteria of CDC Voucher Scheme to Ensure Fairness for Small Businesses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"99 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether the Ministry will review the merchant eligibility criteria under the Community Development Council Voucher Scheme; and (b) what steps are being taken to ensure fairer and more transparent inclusion of small businesses.
Mr David Neo: The Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers Scheme was first introduced in June 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic with two key objectives: to help Singaporean households cope with the cost of living; and to support hawkers and heartland merchants.
In line with the policy intent, our aim is to onboard hawkers and merchants in the Housing and Development Board (HDB) heartlands, such as those in the National Environment Agency (NEA)-managed centres and HDB heartlands, including shops which offer daily goods or services.
However, there are instances where few or no heartland merchants are found within or near residential areas. In such locations, we have onboarded, on a case-by-case basis, small businesses that provide goods and services needed by residents.
In 2023, we responded to residents' requests to further alleviate their expenses by widening the usage of CDC Vouchers to supermarkets. However, only half of the vouchers received could be used at supermarkets, and the remaining half were for use at heartland merchants.
This balanced approach meets both the needs of residents as well as supports our heartland businesses. The spend rate for the 2024 tranche of CDC Vouchers was 97%. In a January 2025 survey, 98% of residents responded that there were \"enough participating merchants\" near their homes to patronise and spend their vouchers.
To date, we have onboarded over 23,000 hawkers and heartland merchants on the CDC Voucher scheme. The CDCs will continue to work closely with key partners, including the Federation of Merchants' Association, Singapore, Heartland Enterprise Centre Singapore and various merchant and hawker associations, to onboard eligible merchants in the heartlands.
The Government remains committed to ensuring that the CDC Vouchers Scheme best serves Singaporean households and boosts our local businesses. We will continue to monitor and review its implementation from time to time, to ensure its reach and effectiveness.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Eligibility and Appeal Avenues for Merchants to Participate in CDC Voucher Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"100 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what specific criteria determine the eligibility to participate in the CDC Voucher Scheme for merchants not located in HDB premises; (b) how are these criteria and the grounds for appeal communicated to rejected applicants; and (c) what steps are being taken to ensure consistent and transparent application of the criteria nationwide.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers scheme was first introduced in June 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic with two key objectives: to help Singaporean households cope with the cost of living; and to support hawkers and heartland merchants.
In line with the policy intent, our aim is to onboard hawkers and merchants in the Housing and Development Board (HDB) heartlands, such as those in the NEA-managed centres and HDB heartlands, including shops which offer daily goods or services.
However, there are instances where few or no heartland merchants are found within or near residential areas. In such locations, we have onboarded, on a case-by-case basis, small businesses that provide goods and services needed by residents.
In 2023, we responded to residents' requests to further alleviate their expenses by widening the usage of CDC vouchers to supermarkets. However, only half of the vouchers received could be used at supermarkets and the remaining half were for use at heartland merchants.
This balanced approach meets both the needs of residents, as well as supports our heartland businesses. The spend rate for the 2024 tranche of CDC Vouchers was 97%. In a January 2025 survey, 98% of residents responded that there were \"enough participating merchants\" near their homes to patronise and spend their vouchers.
To date, we have onboarded over 23,000 hawkers and heartland merchants on the CDC voucher scheme. CDCs will continue to work closely with key partners, including the Federation of Merchants' Association, Singapore, Heartland Enterprise Centre Singapore and various merchant and hawker associations, to onboard eligible merchants in the heartlands.
The Government remains committed to ensuring that the CDC vouchers scheme best serves Singaporean households and boosts our local businesses. We will continue to monitor and review its implementation from time to time, to ensure its reach and effectiveness.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Successful Applications for Public Rental Flats Made By Individuals Undergoing Divorce and Separation Proceedings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"101 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for National Development from 2020 to 2024, how many successful applications for public rental flats are made annually by individuals undergoing divorce and separation proceedings, with a breakdown by (i) those with an interim judgment for divorce (ii) those with a deed of separation and (iii) those on a case-by-case basis, respectively.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: From 2020 to 2024, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) approved about 6,100 requests from individuals who had either completed their divorce or separation, or were undergoing the proceedings with ancillary matters settled. An additional 186 requests were approved without their ancillary matters settled, on a case-by-case basis. The total number of approved requests each year is about 1,200 to 1,300.
HDB does not differentiate applicants who have completed their proceedings and those who are undergoing the proceedings with ancillary matters settled. HDB also does not track applications by the type of documentation submitted and is, therefore, unable to provide the breakdown 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":"Addressing Issue of Pigeon Roosting and Defecation at Air-conditioner Ledges of HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"103 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether any studies have been conducted to address the issue of pigeon roosting and defecation at the air-conditioner ledges of HDB flats which poses hygiene and maintenance concerns for residents; and (b) whether the Home Improvement Programme can be enhanced to mitigate this issue, including upgrades to the design of the clothes drying rack in affected flat types.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: My response will also address other questions related to pigeon management filed by Mr Abdul Muhaimin and Mr Patrick Tay for subsequent Sittings. Should the Members feel that my response sufficiently addresses their questions, the Members may wish to withdraw their questions.
National Parks Board (NParks) takes a proactive, holistic and science-based approach to manage the pigeon population across Singapore. These include direct population control, with trapping and removal, habitat modification, enforcement against illegal bird-feeding and education and outreach efforts to reduce human-generated food sources.
Since July 2024, NParks has partnered Town Councils, the National Environment Agency and Singapore Food Agency to step up these efforts in hotspots under the pigeon management pilot. The pilot showed encouraging results. There has been a decrease in the estimated pigeon population by around 50% across the three town councils, namely Ang Mo Kio, Bishan Toa-Payoh and Tanjong Pagar. The pigeon-related feedback is around 34% lower than the average. These results were derived by comparing against control areas that were not part of the pilot.
In June 2025, NParks expanded the pigeon management plan to three more hotspot town councils, namely Jalan Besar, Marsiling-Yew Tee and Nee Soon. NParks will scale this up across Singapore in phases to help manage the pigeon population.
Specific to the Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates, NParks and HDB have been studying pigeon-related issues and will continue to monitor feedback from residents and trial deterrent measures, such as bird nettings, in consultation with town councils. There are currently no plans to modify the Home Improvement Programme to address this issue.
Keeping the pigeon population under control requires a collective community effort. As bird feeding and human-generated food sources are key drivers of pigeon population growth, we urge residents not to feed birds and to keep our environment clean. NParks will also continue to take enforcement action against individuals who feed pigeons.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cause and Actions Taken for Sinkhole Formation at Tanjong Katong Road South in July 2025","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"104 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what is the cause of the sinkhole in Tanjong Katong Road South on 26 July 2025; (b) whether any party has been penalised for its formation; (c) what are the lessons learnt; and (d) what is done to prevent a similar incident from happening again.
105 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what was the mode of structural failure of the caisson ring at the Tanjong Katong Road South sewer shaft site; (b) whether the failure was due to material, installation, or design deficiencies; (c) what structural integrity checks are mandated for such caisson rings; and (d) whether the failed caisson ring had passed all inspections.
106 Ms Gho Sze Kee asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) when will the independent panel’s findings on the sinkhole that appeared on Tanjong Katong Road South on 26 July 2025 be released; (b) who are the panel members; (c) whether any preliminary findings can be shared; and (d) what measures are in place to periodically check the structural integrity of nearby roads and buildings.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) is conducting an independent investigation under the Building Control Act. The Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) has also convened an internal investigation to look into the cause of the incident and how we can prevent similar incidents from happening in the future. MSE's internal investigation panel comprises four senior members from the MSE Family agencies with the requisite professional and technical expertise.
Since 2024, the Public Utility Board's (PUB) contractor had been conducting sewer laying works beside Tanjong Katong Road South. The works involved the construction of a 16-metre-deep shaft, which is a temporary structure made up of multiple layers of reinforced concrete caisson rings. On 26 July 2025, at approximately 5.50 pm, the contractor's workers observed the failure of one of the caisson rings. This led to soil flowing into the bottom of the shaft. At around the same time, a sinkhole formed along a section of Tanjong Katong Road South which was adjacent to the worksite. Following the incident, to ensure public safety, PUB, in consultation with BCA and the Land Transport Authority, performed safety assessment checks on the roads around the sinkhole. No abnormalities were detected. The affected road sections along Tanjong Katong Road South were then progressively reopened from 2 August 2025.
At this time, investigations into the incident are still ongoing and it would be premature to draw any conclusions. Given the complexity involved, the investigations are expected to take several months.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentage of In-service Early Childhood Educators Who Have Completed Certificate in Inclusive Practice Course","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"107 Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what percentage of in-service early childhood educators have completed the Certificate in Inclusive Practice (CIP) course; and (b) what are the Ministry's plans to encourage and enable more early childhood educators to take the CIP course to deepen their knowledge and skills in supporting children with developmental needs.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The National Institute of Early Childhood Development (NIEC) began offering the Certificate in Inclusive Practice (CIP) in 2022 and there has been an intake of about 80 in-service educators each year.
Beyond equipping educators through CIP, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) also works with training providers to incorporate inclusive practice into the curriculum of early childhood pre-service training and continuing professional development (CPD) courses. These courses develop preschool educators' competencies in inclusive practice, including behaviour guidance and differentiated instruction to support children with additional needs.
ECDA has also piloted the Inclusive Support Programme (InSP) in six preschools, to integrate early intervention and early childhood services at preschools for children requiring medium levels of early intervention support. Educators in InSP preschools undergo training and coaching to equip them with the necessary skills and competencies to support children with additional needs in the preschool setting. ECDA remains committed to working with partners to make preschools more inclusive and to provide a good start for every child.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Quantifying Potential Cost Impact of New Fixed Installation Plan Submission Requirement on Lift Modernisation Projects","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"109 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether any study or assessment has been commissioned to quantify the potential cost impact of the new fixed installation (FI) plan submission requirement, starting 1 October 2025, on lift modernisation projects; (b) if so, what are the key findings; and (c) how will these inform support measures for Town Councils and other lift owners to manage possible cost increases.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The new requirement for lift plan submission aims to have lift installations properly reviewed by qualified professionals before works start. The additional cost of engaging qualified persons to submit lift plans could range from 0.5%-2% of the total installation cost for lifts, estimated to be about $500 to $2,000.
To streamline the application process, the Building and Contruction Authority will allow all lift owners, including town councils, to submit a single application for works relating to the same lift design or same modification work to lifts across different locations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Review to Remove 15-month Wait-out Requirement for Private Property Owners Downgrading to HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"112 Mr Ng Chee Meng asked the Minister for National Development whether there will be updates on when HDB will complete its review to remove the 15-month wait-out requirement for private property owners downgrading to HDB flats.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: This answer will provide a combined response to related questions raised by Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Ms Valerie Lee, Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Mr Alex Yeo, which are scheduled for subsequent Sittings.
As part of the property cooling measures introduced in September 2022 to promote sustainable conditions in the property market, private property owners need to wait 15 months after the disposal of their properties, before buying a non-subsidised Housing and Development Board (HDB) resale flat. To better support the retirement needs of seniors, Singapore citizens aged 55 and above are exempted from this waiting period if they move from their private residential property to a 4-room or smaller resale HDB flat.
Since 2022, HDB has processed about 1,800 appeals annually from private property owners to waive the 15-month wait-out period. This number has been stable over the last few years. HDB acceded to about one in four appeals, mainly for households in financial difficulties or extenuating circumstances, who have no alternative housing options. HDB does not track the appeals by the flat type that the appellant seeks to purchase.
We will continue to monitor the resale market and when conditions allow, we plan to remove the 15-month wait-out period.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjustments to Vehicular Emissions Scheme and EV Early Adoption Incentive Beyond 2027","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"115 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Acting Minister for Transport whether the Ministry can provide clarity on how the Vehicular Emissions Scheme and the Electric Vehicle Early Adoption Incentive will be further adjusted beyond 2027, as part of our targets under the SG Green Plan, so as to reduce volatility in the COE market.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Electric Vehicle (EV) Early Adoption Incentive will cease from 1 January 2027. The Vehicular Emissions Scheme (VES) has been extended till end-2027. We will consider factors, such as EV adoption rates and upfront cost difference across powertrains, when reviewing VES in the future.
The Member may wish to refer to my response to the Adjournment Motion on 22 September 2025 for more context. [Please refer to \"Toward Certificate of Entitlement (COE) 2.0\", Official Report, 22 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 2, Matter raised on Adjournment Motion section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Process in Engaging Stakeholders on Reclamation Projects with Potential Ecological Consequences","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"116 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the steps that the Ministry takes when engaging stakeholders on reclamation projects that may have potential ecological consequences; and (b) how are such stakeholder groups identified.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Under Singapore's Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) framework, reclamation projects with potential ecological or trans-boundary impacts are required to undergo detailed environmental studies to assess the potential impacts on our coastlines and marine environment, and to develop appropriate mitigating measures. These studies take into account surrounding habitats that may be affected by the works.
Developing agencies will engage stakeholders, such as nature groups, academics and researchers, for feedback on the environmental study's scope, findings and proposed mitigation measures. Interested members of the public can also view the environmental study report and share their feedback with developing agencies when EIA is publicly disclosed. Such studies and engagements are done early in the planning process, so that inputs can be incorporated in the reclamation and development plans before implementation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ventilation and Cooling Standards in Schools to Ensure Equitable, Cognitively Optimal Learning Environment for All Students","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"118 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for Education given evidence that each additional one-degree Celsius increase in temperature reduces learning by 1-2% with greater impact on lower-income students (a) what is the Ministry's assessment of \"thermal inequality\" between air-conditioned and non-air-conditioned classrooms; and (b) what specific hardware standards, such as cooling, ventilation and insulation, will ensure equitable, cognitively optimal learning environment for all students.
Mr Desmond Lee: My response will also cover the matters raised in the question by Mr Patrick Tay, which is scheduled for a subsequent Sitting on 25 September 20251.
MOE aims to provide a conducive learning environment, through heat-resilient school design. For example, north-south building direction for natural ventilation and shading to minimise direct sunlight, large window openings for passive cooling, supported by ceiling fans
We are adopting additional heat mitigation measures to tackle rising temperatures. To reduce ambient temperature, school building exteriors are being coated with cool paint, and more shade and greenery are provided. To enhance cooling, we are adding more and faster fans to all classrooms, while designing new schools with more windows and open spaces. We are also installing mixed-mode air-conditioning in all school halls for large-scale events. In doing so, we seek to achieve a good level of thermal comfort in an energy-efficient manner by setting the air-conditioner at an appropriate temperature and using this together with high volume, low speed fans. We have also reviewed uniform guidelines to allow physical education attire on most days of the week.
We will continue to explore further heat adaptation and active cooling measures for classrooms, such as mixed mode air-conditioning, based on scientific understanding of how rising temperature affects student learning, including the United States' research Mr Tiong appears to have cited. However, we should consider local context, including our local climate, school design, student routines and learning approaches.
We will continue to look into how we can improve the thermal comfort so that all students can continue to have conducive learning environments regardless of the school they attend.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will consider equipping more classrooms with air-conditioners that can be used when temperatures rise to high heat stress levels to prevent compromising students’ well-being, ability to concentrate and cognitive performance."],"footNoteQuestions":["118"],"questionNo":"118"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Allegation that Cyber Attacks against Information Systems of Ninth Asian Winter Games in Harbin Originated from Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"119 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information what is the Government's position on the allegation made by the Chinese Embassy in Singapore in The Straits Times on 5 August 2025, that at the Ninth Asian Winter Games held in Harbin in February 2025, China saw 14.97% or 40,000 cyberattacks against its \"information systems of competition\" originating from Singapore.
Mrs Josephine Teo: As Members are aware, the digital world is borderless. Malicious cyber actors can launch their attacks from anywhere and often design their attack pathways to mask their true origins. That is why it is important to investigate to establish the origin of attack. To date, the Government does not have any evidence of attacks originating from Singapore against the Ninth Asian Winter Games in Harbin.
Singapore does not allow the use of our digital infrastructure for malicious cyber activities and will act on evidence of such activities. To this end, the Singapore Cyber Emergency Response Team, under the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore, has reached out to its counterpart in the People's Republic of China (PRC) to render its assistance. Should the PRC authorities share any information with us on this issue, we will follow up to investigate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Explaining Misinformation and Singapore Government's Positions on Polarising Overseas Conflicts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"120 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs in light of conflicts overseas that may have a polarising effect on Singaporeans (a) what is the Ministry doing to (i) equip the public with easy-to-understand information and (ii) explain the rationale behind the Government’s position; and (b) how can community leaders be equipped to help provide clarity on the Government's position and address misinformation or rumours.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: The Government has stepped up engagement to explain our foreign policy fundamentals and approaches to Singaporeans and hear their views. We do this through dialogue sessions and workshops across segments of society, including students, youths, businesses and the media. For example, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) regularly conducts Foreign Policy Engagement Sessions with all pre-tertiary institutions to explain the fundamentals of Singapore's foreign policy. Through such engagements, we also hope to equip the leaders of various segments of our society with the ability to help address questions from their respective grounds. We will continue to enhance the public's understanding of foreign policy through such engagements as well as through social media content that is more easily understood and relatable.
In this era of constant information and views from a wide variety of sources and commentators, it is important for Singaporeans to be discerning of what we hear or read. While it is natural for Singaporeans to have a diversity of views, it is crucial for us to stay united and not allow external conflicts or divisive rhetoric to fragment our society. This is a whole-of-society effort. MFA will continue to work with community leaders in our shared efforts to help fellow Singaporeans understand Singapore's national interests that guide our foreign policy and be vigilant.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Provision of and Subsidy for Personal Tracking Devices for Caregivers of Children with Autism under Assistive Technology Fund","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"121 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether personal tracking devices, such as Apple AirTags, qualify for subsidies under the Assistive Technology Fund; (b) if so, how many caregivers of children with autism obtained such devices in each of the last three years; and (c) whether the Ministry will proactively provide a starter device upon diagnosis via early-intervention centres.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Assistive Technology Fund (ATF) supports eligible persons with disabilities (PwDs) in purchasing assistive devices for the purposes of early intervention, education, employment, therapy, rehabilitation and independent living. To date, we have not received any applications for personal tracking devices from PwDs. Such devices can be supported under ATF as they enable persons with autism to live independently.
Persons with autism and their caregivers may utilise different types of personal tracking devices, such as global positioning system tracking watches or air tags, depending on their preferences.
As the decision to utilise such tracking devices rests with caregivers, we will not proactively provide such devices to children with autism via early intervention centres.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strengthening Protection for Singapore’s Critical Information Infrastructure Given Rise in Advanced Persistent Threat Attacks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"122 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information with the rise in Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) attacks against Singapore's critical infrastructure (a) what safeguards beyond mandatory reporting will be required of Critical Information Infrastructure (CII) owners for early detection and containment; and (b) how the Ministry will strengthen capability, talent and resources to defend against such threats.
123 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information in light of the Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) attacks against Singapore's critical infrastructure (a) how will the Ministry work with international organisations and agencies to strengthen deterrence against such threats; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider a whole-of-Government approach to raise awareness and preparedness for such threats among organisations beyond critical information infrastructure (CII) operators, including businesses and the public.
124 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information how can Singapore better harmonise its cyber resilience across industries by adopting international standards on cybersecurity for operational technology, such as IEC 62443 and MITRE ATT&CK for Industrial Control Systems, in light of a recent attack on Singapore's critical information infrastructure by advanced persistent threat actors (APT).
Mrs Josephine Teo: Singapore is indeed a target for cyberattacks by advanced persistent threat (APT). From 2021 to 2024, suspected APT attacks on Singapore increased more than fourfold. Such attacks happen across the private and public sectors, and various industries. Most recently, agencies detected UNC3886 attacking our critical information infrastructure (CII). Such attacks seriously threaten our national security. They can disrupt the delivery of essential services like electricity and water. Our sensitive data may also be stolen.
The Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA) works closely with both domestic and international partners and stakeholders to protect our nation's cyberspace against such threats.
Within Singapore, CII owners play a critical role in safeguarding the critical systems under their charge. Under the Cybersecurity Act and Cybersecurity Code of Practice, CII owners must meet certain baseline requirements to help protect them from known vulnerabilities. These requirements are generally aligned to international best practices, such as the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 62443 series of standards for automation and control systems, and the MITRE ATT&CK framework for Industrial Control Systems. CII owners must also conduct regular cybersecurity testing and audits to verify the robustness of their defences. To raise awareness and prepare organisations for cyber threats, CSA conducts Exercise Cyber Star each year. This nationwide exercise tests critical sectors on their readiness to respond during a cyber crisis.
International collaboration is also key to countering cyber threats, given the borderless nature of cyberspace. To this end, Singapore participates in regular CERT-to-CERT exchanges and joint cross-border operations, including with regional partners through the ASEAN Regional Computer Emergency Response Team.
While we have the foundations laid, we cannot afford to be complacent. APTs are highly skilled and well-resourced. They are constantly testing their target' defences and finding new ways to achieve their objectives. Therefore, CSA is reviewing how we can work with relevant agencies and stakeholders to better protect our CII. We will share more when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Use Excess U-Save Rebates to Offset Service and Conservancy Charges","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether households with continual low utilities usage and accumulating unused U-Save rebates may be allowed the flexibility to use the excess rebates to offset their Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC).
Mr Lawrence Wong: U-Save rebates are intended to offset households' utilities expenses only. U-Save rebates have no expiry date, and unused rebates can be rolled over to offset households' future utilities expenses.
For Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC), eligible households will receive the Goods & Services Tax Voucher – S&CC Rebate, which offsets between 1.5 and 3.5 months of S&CC in Financial Year 2025.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Use of AI and Technology Tools to Reduce Errors and Increase Efficiency in Government Contract Evaluation, Award and Management","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in light of the findings by the Auditor-General's Office for FY24/25 on contract management and tender evaluation, whether the Public Service Division has employed artificial intelligence (AI) tools and other technological measures to reduce errors and increase efficiency in tender evaluation and to ensure contracts are awarded in line with the Government’s procurement principles.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Yes, the Government has been actively exploring the use of technology, including artificial intelligence, in procurement, and has started to use them in suitable areas to reduce errors and increase efficiency.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Replenishing Reserves Drawn During COVID-19 Crisis and Impact on Taxes Imposed on Singaporeans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Lee Hong Chuang asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what plans are in place to restore the Reserves drawn down during the COVID-19 crisis amid the ongoing global uncertainties; (b) what is the expected timeframe for replenishment of the Reserves drawn; and (c) whether this process will involve any increase in taxes or reduced essential public services for Singaporeans.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Between Financial Year 2020 and Financial Year 2022, Singapore drew about $40 billion from the Past Reserves to support COVID-19 measures to safeguard Singaporeans' lives and livelihoods during the crisis.
We do not expect to be able to put back the amount drawn from the Past Reserves during COVID-19. As previously explained by the Prime Minister in the debate on the Budget Statement 2025 in response to a similar query by Ms Tin Pei Ling (then the Member of Parliament for MacPherson), this is because we expect our spending to increase in the coming years, and we will have to deploy our fiscal resources to meet this increased expenditure in order to keep within our means and maintain a balanced Budget over the medium term. [Please refer to \"Debate on Annual Budget Statement\", Official Report, 28 February 2025, Vol 95, Issue 155, Budget section.]
We will nevertheless continue to be responsible and prudent with our finances, and any surpluses accumulated at the end of the term of Government will be protected as Past Reserves.
In light of the foregoing, the matters in paras (b) and (c) of the Member’s query do not arise for answer.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expanding Pilot on Displaying of Unit Prices in Supermarkets to Permanent Implementation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry what are the key performance indicators in the pilot for displaying unit prices in supermarkets for the Ministry to consider more permanent implementation.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Government is working with major supermarket operators and the Consumers Association of Singapore to progressively launch a pilot on unit pricing from 1 September 2025. Through the pilot, we will assess consumer feedback on the effectiveness of unit pricing to enable easier price comparison across grocery products of different brands and package sizes, and facilitate more informed purchasing decisions. We will also seek to understand from the operators, the operational feasibility of unit pricing and the impact to their businesses. The insights will inform our decision on whether or not, a broader rollout will deliver meaningful value to both consumers and businesses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Low-interest Financing Schemes for SMEs Undertaking Digital Transformation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Lee Hong Chuang asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Ministry will consider working with financial institutions to provide low-interest financing schemes for SMEs that are undertaking digital transformation, with the aim of alleviating financial pressures and ensuring that businesses already progressing in their digitalisation efforts are not placed in untenable or unsustainable positions.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Enterprise Singapore administers the Enterprise Financing Scheme (EFS), which helps Singapore enterprises to more readily access financing for their business needs across all stages of growth. These include loans supporting businesses' digital transformation plans. Through EFS, the Government shares the risk for any default of loans extended by participating financial institutions, to help catalyse more lending to our companies.
Beyond loans, the Government has implemented a suite of initiatives to support businesses in their digital transformation journeys. These include the Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) Go Digital Programme and the Chief Technology Officer-as-a-Service.
6 Mr Victor Lye asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) in each of the last three years, what is the percentage of refuse chute fires of all residential fires that the Singapore Civil Defence Force responded to; (b) in each of the last three years, what is the average number of refuse chute fires per month; and (c) what are the main suspected causes of such refuse chute fires.\n
Mr K Shanmugam: Refuse chute fires are considered minor fires. They are typically caused by indiscriminate disposal of lighted materials such as un-extinguished cigarette butts and smouldering embers. They are generally low-risk with little potential for fire spread.
Refuse chute fires are very different from residential fires and are therefore tracked separately from residential fire statistics. It would not be meaningful to compare refuse chute fires and residential fires.
The Singapore Civil Defence Force responded to an average of 54, 46 and 47 refuse chute fires per month in 2022, 2023 and 2024 respectively.
7 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs for each year for the last five years, how many fires relating to personal mobility devices, power-assisted bicycles and personal mobility aids took place in (i) owner-occupied HDB flats; (ii) public rental HDB flats; (iii) condominiums; (iv) landed houses; (v) non-residential premises such as commercial buildings; and (vi) non-buildings such as on the roads or open spaces.
Mr K Shanmugam: The requested data is provided in the following table:
8 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) in 2024, what proportion of Singapore citizens and their foreign spouse-to-be who applied for Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) have completed the Pre-Marriage LTVP Assessment (PMLA); and (b) what are the efforts made by ICA to raise the awareness and encourage more such couples to take the PMLA before applying for the LTVP.
Mr K Shanmugam: Of the Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) applications from foreign spouses of Singapore citizens processed by the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) in 2024, 64% of the applicants completed the Pre-Marriage LTVP Assessment (PMLA) prior to applying for LTVP.
ICA has provided PMLA advisories in various languages on its website and improved the accessibility of PMLA-related information through the search engines. The \"Our Marriage Journey\" online portal for couples getting married also carries information on the PMLA, and officers from the Registry of Marriages and Registry of Muslim Marriages prompt couples who have not completed the PMLA to do so.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number and Causes of HDB Flat Fires that Resulted in Deaths and Injuries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs in relation to fire incidents in HDB flats occurring from 2020 to 2024, (a) what were the top three causes of such fire incidents which resulted in deaths or injuries; and (b) how many and what proportion of such fire incidents resulted in deaths and injuries of persons outside of the flat where the fire originated.
Mr K Shanmugam: Between 2020 and 2024, the top three causes of fires in Housing and Development Board flats which resulted in deaths or injuries were unattended cooking, electrical faults and unattended lighted materials, such as candles, incense or cigarettes.
The Singapore Civil Defence Force does not track the number of deaths and injuries by whether the deaths and injuries occurred inside or outside of the flat where the fire originated.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proportion of HDB Flat Fires Linked to Electrical Causes that Occurred in Pre-1997 and Post-1997 Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs of the HDB fire incidents in 2024 of electrical origin (a) what proportion occurred (i) in flats built in 1997 or earlier and covered by HDB’s Home Improvement Programme and (ii) in flats built after 1997, respectively; and (b) what number and proportion were attributable to faulty or old wiring.
Mr K Shanmugam: In 2024, there were 218 fires involving Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats that were attributed to electrical faults, and 129, or 59.2%, of these fires occurred in flats built up to 1997. Of these, 93 fires, or 42.7%, involved flats which had undergone or are still awaiting Home Improvement Programme works; 36 fires, or 16.5% involved flats which were upgraded via other programmes. The remaining 89 fires (40.8%) occurred in flats built after 1997. The Singapore Civil Defence Force does not track whether the cause of fires of electrical fault origin is specifically due to faulty or old wiring.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safety Measures at Self-use Facilities in SAF Camps Such As Swimming Pools and Fitness Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Coordinating Minister for Public Services and Minister for Defence what are the safety measures in place for the self-use of facilities within Singapore Armed Forces camps, such as swimming pools and fitness equipment, including having safety officers or lifeguards on duty. \n
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) service personnel who are medically and physically fit are allowed to participate in self-initiated physical fitness activities on SAF premises to improve their personal fitness. In doing so, they are required to take precautions to mitigate risks, which include bringing their mobile phones with them and remaining contactable, and pairing with a buddy if the activity is done outside SAF premises, for example, for an out-of-camp run. SAF units also remind their service personnel to contact the emergency ambulance service in the event of medical exigencies and provide forms to help service personnel assess their suitability for self-initiated activity as an additional precautionary measure.
Gyms and swimming pools in SAF premises are manned by duty personnel or lifeguards during operating hours. SAF service personnel are allowed to use these facilities outside operating hours without duty personnel or lifeguards on site, as long as they take the precautions required of self-initiated fitness activities. Since late August 2025, added precautions have been implemented for self-initiated swimming activities. Service personnel are now not allowed to swim alone with no one else at the pool, if there are no lifeguards on site.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progressively Reducing Frequency of Flights from Paya Lebar Airbase Leading Up to Its Decommissioning in 2030","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Alex Yeo asked the Coordinating Minister for Public Services and Minister for Defence (a) whether there are plans to progressively reduce the frequency of flights from Paya Lebar Airbase leading up to its decommissioning in 2030; and (b) whether the Ministry plans to implement any specific measures to mitigate the impact of aircraft noise on young families residing in the Potong Pasir/Bidadari areas during the early mornings and late evenings.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Local flying training is critical to keep Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) pilots proficient and to maintain the RSAF’s operational readiness to safeguard Singapore skies. To reduce the impact to residents living in the vicinity of our air bases, the RSAF has adopted several noise abatement measures, which include: conducting about 50% of RSAF flying training overseas, shifting some of the local flying requirements to simulators, planning for local flying routes away from residential areas where possible, and adjusting flying training tempo and hours during school examinations period. Less than 1% of the RSAF’s flights, helicopters and planes take place from 10.00 pm to 8.00 am over Singapore, unless for operational reasons.
The planned relocation of Paya Lebar Airbase (PLAB) remains on track for 2030 or beyond. The relocation of an airbase is a complex endeavour, and will be done progressively as essential aircraft support infrastructure become ready at their respective air bases. Concomitantly, the frequency of flights from PLAB will also be reduced progressively during the relocation phase.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Implication of Renaming of US Department of Defense to Department of War on Singapore’s Foreign Policy, Defence Strategy and Regional Stability","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Lee Hong Chuang asked the Coordinating Minister for Public Services and Minister for Defence what are the implications that the recent renaming of the United States Department of Defense to the Department of War may have on Singapore’s foreign policy, defence strategy and regional stability.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The naming of the department is an internal matter for the United States' (US) administration to decide. During my recent visit to the US in September 2025, I had a productive meeting with the Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. We reaffirmed our excellent and longstanding bilateral defence relationship and discussed ways to deepen cooperation. Singapore supports the US' continued engagement in the Asia-Pacific, in line with the 1990 Memorandum of Understanding which was renewed in 2019 by President Donald Trump and then-Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extending Drone Operation Training to All New NS Enlistees to Maximise Operational Versatility across Vocations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Lee Hong Chuang asked the Coordinating Minister for Public Services and Minister for Defence (a) how does the Ministry intend to extend drone operation training to all new enlistees, including both combat-fit and non-combat-fit recruits, to maximise operational versatility across vocations; (b) how does the Ministry plan to upskill current Full-time National Servicemen and Operationally Ready National Servicemen in drone operations, particularly those who may not have received such training.\n
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Singapore Armed Forces plans to train all service-fit recruits to operate and counter drones. After Basic Military Training, they will continue to hone these competencies during their full-time national service, in both our leadership schools and Army units.
Drone training will also be progressively rolled out for Operationally Ready National Servicemen. The first National Service units will start operating with drones during their in-camp trainings from mid-2026.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Help for Nicotine and Vape Addiction, and Extent of Manufacture and Surrender of Etomidate-laced Vapes in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what rehabilitative programmes or counselling support are in place to help youths address nicotine addiction and peer pressure, amid growing number of youths caught vaping; (b) how does the Ministry work with schools, parents, and community partners to prevent recidivism; and (c) whether there are plans to expand early intervention and diversionary programmes to guide youths away from vaping.
16 Mr Foo Cexiang asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) since 1 June 2025, what is the number of people who have (i) called the Health Promotion Board’s QuitLine in relation to vaping addiction and (ii) approached the agencies recommended by the Ministry to seek help to quit the use of etomidate vapes; and (b) whether the numbers reflect an increasing trend.
17 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what is the Government's assessment of the risks and ease of manufacturing etomidate and its analogues within Singapore; and (b) in view of possible risks, whether there are plans to phase out the use of etomidate in medical settings by adopting alternative anaesthetic agents and if so, what are these alternatives.\n\n
18 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) of the approximately 6,000 vapes and related components disposed from 25 July to 31 August 2025, how many vapes are laced with etomidate; and (b) whether people who surrender etomidate-laced vapes from 1 September 2025 continue to face no penalty.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: These questions have been addressed in oral reply to Parliamentary Questions Nos 7 to 11 in the 22 September 2025 sitting. [Please refer to \"Number of Vape-related Arrests Made, and Update on Enforcement, Preventive and Rehabilitative Measures for Tackling Vaping\", Official Report, 22 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 2, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Help under Grow Well SG for Children from Vulnerable Families to Benefit from Early Healthy Lifestyle Interventions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what targeted support measures under Grow Well SG are in place to help children from lower-income or high-stress households benefit equally from early healthy lifestyle interventions; and (b) whether there are plans to bolster access among vulnerable families through partnership with models such as ComLink+.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Efforts such as Grow Well SG are universal, covering all children. Hence, they are designed to benefit the lower income the most, who would otherwise not have access to such preventive health services and guidance.
Specifically, all Primary 1 to 3 students receive personalised Health Plans with Lifestyle Prescription through the Health Promotion Board’s annual school health screening exercise. We plan to expand the initiative to other age groups progressively.
At the same time, we have partnered with the Ministry of Social and Family Development to strengthen health support for ComLink+ families and their children. Together, we are nudging ComLink+ families to inculcate healthy habits for their children from young, take preventive health actions, and help them access the appropriate health services.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Utilisation Rate of Home Nursing Services and Plans to Expand Provision of Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what is the current utilisation rate for home nursing services; and (b) what plans are in place to expand the provision of these services.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: As of June 2025, the utilisation rate for the subsidised home nursing service is about 80%. Home nursing capacity is reviewed regularly to ensure adequate capacity to meet the demand.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of IVF Embryos Discarded Due to Couples Divorcing or Death of Spouse","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Ms Hany Soh asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health in each of the past five years, what is the number of in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) embryos discarded due to (i) divorce between couples and (ii) death of a spouse.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health does not track the number of in-vitro fertilisation embryos discarded due to divorce between couples or death of spouse.
If the Assisted Reproduction centres are informed of such circumstances, the embryo(s) will be donated or discarded in accordance with the couple’s written instructions obtained before embryo(s) storage.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Success Rates of Assisted Conception Procedures at Public Hospitals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Ms Hany Soh asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health in each of the past three years, what are the numbers of cases that underwent Assisted Conception Procedures (ACP) at public hospitals (i) that exceeded the co-funded scheme cycle limits and the success rate of such cases and (ii) that were successful within the co-funded scheme cycle limits.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The data for Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART) cycles from 2021 to 2023 is in Table 1.
23 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether regular assessments are made of the Institute of Mental Health’s service quality levels for telephone calls made to its Main Line and Outpatient Appointment Line; and (b) what has been the trend on key metrics including but not limited to call abandonment rate, service quality level, average handling time, and caller satisfaction, over the past two years.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Institute of Mental Health (IMH) conducts monthly assessments of its Main Line and Outpatient Appointment Line as part of service quality monitoring.
The abandonment rates and average handling times of IMH's Main Line and Outpatient Appointment Line grew in recent months, mainly due to growing call volumes and transition of a major information technology system at this hospital. IMH has put in place measures to improve call management, such as ramping up and redeploying manpower, and improving operational processes. Caller satisfaction data will be tracked from late-2025 through post-call surveys.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Median Waiting Time for Appointments at IMH Made through Different Channels","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health what is the current median waiting time for appointments at the Institute of Mental Health (IMH), for each channel of making appointments such as via telephone, email, Health Hub self-service, IMH Online Appointment Form, and referral from GP or polyclinic.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The current median waiting time for appointments at the Institute of Mental Health is 25 days across all channels of referral.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Utilisation Rate of Parenting for Wellness Initiative Portal and Resources","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health since the launch of the Parenting for Wellness Initiative (a) how many parents have been reached with this resource; (b) how many visitors or users have logged on to the portal as registered users; and (c) whether there are any early insights to be shared about which features of the initiative have registered particular interest from users.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Health Promotion Board, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Social and Family Development launched the Parenting for Wellness initiative in September 2024. The website has reached 69,000 unique visitors, with over 2,700 users signing up for the personalised dashboard which recommends learning modules and tracks their progress. The Government and partners have distributed over 76,000 copies of the Parenting for Wellness Toolbox through digital downloads and physical copies at events such as the Digital for Life Festival, National Family Festival and Singapore Mental Health Conference.
This initiative has received positive feedback from parents who find the resources relevant and practical. Family life educators and student welfare officers also shared that the resources will support their work with families.
We will continue to work closely with partners to refine and improve the resources on the platform, to ensure it meets parents' evolving needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Singapore's Humanitarian Aid to Gaza and Singapore's Next Steps as Conflict Escalates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) of the S$22 million humanitarian aid to Gaza since October 2023, what is the breakdown of allocation of key areas of assistance; (b) what are the coordination measures with on-the-ground humanitarian partners to ensure that aid is effectively and equitably distributed; and (c) what is the tangible impact of these aid in alleviating human suffering in Gaza.
27 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) whether the Ministry can provide updates and developments on Singapore’s upcoming cooperation with Egypt, Jordan or any other countries to deliver humanitarian aid to the civilians affected in Gaza; and (b) whether the Ministry has received any updates on the opening of land border access to allow aid access into Gaza.
28 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs what are Singapore’s plans on the recognition of the Palestinian state following reports on the announced plans by France, the UK, Canada and Australia to recognise Palestine as a sovereign state at the upcoming UN General Assembly in September 2025.
29 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs what will be Singapore's next steps should Israel continue to escalate the situation in Gaza.
30 Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) what is the impact and status of Singapore’s $22 million contribution to relief efforts in Gaza to date; (b) whether any of the contribution was delayed, denied, or obstructed; (c) if so, how many percent; and (d) what other measures will the Ministry take to ensure as many of the future aid tranches reach the intended people in Gaza.\n\n
31 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) whether the Government is monitoring (i) the declared intentions of other countries to recognise a Palestinian state and (ii) the recent sanctions or restrictions undertaken by other countries against Israel; and (b) whether such developments factor into Singapore’s assessment for recognising a Palestinian state.
32 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the Government is aware of any consideration by the United Nations Security Council of a resolution authorising a peacekeeping force in Gaza, in view of past vetoes; and (b) what is Singapore’s position on such resolutions.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: These questions for written answer were addressed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs in their Ministerial Statements on “Situation in the Middle East” at the Parliamentary Sitting on 22 September 2025. [Please refer to \"Situation in the Middle East\", Official Report, 22 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 2, Ministerial Statements section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Hawkers Who Have Hired LTVP or LTVP+ Holders to Work as Stall Assistants","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"
33 Mr Victor Lye asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how many hawkers have hired long-term visit pass (LTVP) or LTVP+ holders to work as stall assistants since it was allowed on 1 January 2025; and (b) whether the data indicates (i) a limited supply pool or (ii) limited demand due to the restriction to LTVP or LTVP+ holders.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Starting 1 January 2025, the policy was relaxed to allow stallholders at hawker centres managed by the National Environment Agency (NEA) or NEA-appointed operators to hire Long Term Visit Pass (LTVP) or Long Term Visit Pass-Plus (LTVP+) holders with Letters of Consent (LOC) or pre-approved LOCs as their stall assistants, even without any familial ties to the hawkers.
In the first six months since the revised policy, about 170 LTVP or LTVP+ holders were hired as stall assistants across over 120 hawker centres. The policy is relatively new, and NEA will continue to monitor the number of LTVP or LTVP+ holders working in our hawker centres.
","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 Hawker Succession Scheme and Review of Scheme to Discourage Subletting of Hawker Stalls","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Mr Victor Lye asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) for each year since 2012, how many cases of hawker stall subletting have been detected; (b) for each year since the introduction of the Hawker Succession Scheme (HSS) on 1 January 2022, how many hawkers have taken up the HSS; and (c) whether NEA plans to review the HSS to discourage subletting.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The National Environment Agency (NEA) takes a firm stance against subletting and conducts regular inspections to ensure that stallholders personally operate their stalls. Between 2012 and 2024, NEA had issued termination notices to about 230 stallholders who had received previous warnings for not personally operating their stalls. In 2024 alone, NEA issued Letters of Warning to more than 230 stallholders who did not personally operate their stalls and issued more than 30 termination notices.
The objective of the Hawkers Succession Scheme (HSS) is to facilitate succession rather than address subletting. Today, retiring veteran hawkers can pass down their skills, recipes and hawker stalls to their family members or relatives. The HSS provides an alternative by matching them with aspiring successors, facilitating an apprenticeship process and transfer of the stall. Thus far, six veteran hawkers have successfully completed the transfer via the HSS, while four are currently in the process of doing so. NEA is further working with two other veteran hawkers to find suitable successors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Intended Carbon Tax Rate beyond 2027","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Ms Lee Hui Ying asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether an update can be provided on the intended carbon tax rate beyond 2027; and (b) whether Singapore is on track to meet the target of $50 to $80 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) by 2030.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: In 2022, we announced that the Government planned to progressively increase the carbon tax to $45 per tonne in 2026 and 2027, with a view to reaching $50 to $80 per tonne by 2030.
The Government reviews the trajectory of our carbon tax rate from time to time, taking into account prevailing circumstances and will provide updates in due course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Internal Review of AGO's FY2024/2025 Findings of Falsified Documents in PUB Contract","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Mr Foo Cexiang asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what are the findings from PUB’s internal investigation into the case of falsified documents flagged in the recent Auditor-General’s Report for FY24/25; and (b) what are the measures which PUB will put in place to prevent future recurrences.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: This question has been addressed together with a similar Parliamentary Question No 18 at the Parliamentary Sitting on 22 September 2025, for a more holistic reply. [Please refer to \"Internal Probe into PUB's Contract Irregularities Reported in AGO's FY2024/2025 Audit and Interim Governance Measures Implemented\", Official Report, 22 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 2, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Restrict Smoking at or Near Windows or Balconies of HDB or Private Residential Units","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"37 Mr Alex Yeo asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry will reconsider restricting smoking at or near windows or balconies in HDB or private apartment units; and (b) if so, whether such restrictions can be enforced in the same way that high-rise littering is being monitored and enforced.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: There are currently no plans to extend smoking restrictions to Housing and Development Board or private apartments, including smoking at or near windows and balconies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Evaluation Criteria for Partner Operator Applications for Preschool Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"38 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what are the specific and objective criteria used by ECDA to evaluate Partner Operator applications for preschool services beyond broad principles of quality and affordability; and (b) what is ECDA's policy on providing detailed written feedback to unsuccessful applicants, including to outline specific shortcomings against these criteria, to help them meet the required criteria for future applications.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: For the current term of the Partner Operator (POP) scheme, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) had run an open, competitive call for applicants. The selection process considered multiple factors such as the applicants' track record in providing quality childcare services, financial sustainability and accessibility of centres, and local preschool demand. In addition, applicants were required to demonstrate commitment and ability to meet the scheme's requirements, which included the ability to provide affordable and quality preschool services, and enhance professional development and career prospects for Early Childhood professionals. Unsuccessful applicants were informed that ECDA had considered the relative suitability of operators and centres against the aforementioned factors.
ECDA is currently evaluating applications for the next term of the POP scheme, which will commence from 1 January 2026. The results will be announced soon. The principles for selecting POP operators and centres, and communications to unsuccessful applicants for the next term will be broadly in line with the practice for the current term of the POP scheme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Total Annual Imputed Rental Value of Properties Allocated to Anchor Operators and Partner Operators of Preschool Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"39 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the total estimated annual imputed rental value of all properties ultimately allocated to ECDA's Anchor Operators and Partner Operators for preschool services for which market-rate rent is not charged; and (b) how does the Ministry factor this in-kind subsidy when evaluating the financial efficiency of these preferential allocation schemes.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Anchor Operator centres allocated Housing Development Board premises by the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) are charged similar rental rates as other socio-communal facilities. ECDA does not currently allocate any sites to Partner Operator centres.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cross-agency Sharing of Data to Prompt Follow-up by Child Protection Services on Potential Child Abuse or Neglect Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"40 Mr David Hoe asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether formal cross-agency triggers such as chronic absenteeism, polyclinic or hospital visits, and caregiver incarceration will automatically prompt follow-up by Child Protection Services for potential child abuse/neglect cases; (b) whether non-ad hoc coordination or data-sharing arrangements exist between the Ministry and other agencies to support such triggers; and (c) if not, whether the Ministry will consider establishing them.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) has established different processes with schools, hospitals and law enforcement agencies, customised to their operating environment, to pick up possible cases of child abuse or neglect.
For Ministry of Education Schools, staff are trained to use the Education Sector-Specific Screening Guide to assess suspected cases of child abuse or neglect. As absenteeism can arise from other factors besides child abuse or neglect, the school will first contact the family and conduct home visits to check on the student's well-being. Teachers also monitor student welfare during daily interactions. School personnel also use the Child Abuse Reporting Guide to assess cases. Where required, they will make a report to the National Anti-Violence and Sexual Harassment Helpline (NAVH).
When hospitals identify non-accidental injuries and suspect child abuse or neglect, their protocols require them to lodge a Police report and alert the medical social worker, who will report the case to NAVH. When law enforcement agencies like the Singapore Police Force or Central Narcotics Bureau encounter young children affected by the arrest of family members, officers will refer them to NAVH if there is no available caregiver or if there are concerns of abuse or neglect.
MSF currently shares and has data sharing arrangements with various agencies. It will continually assess whether data alerts and triggers will on balance, provide a more effective response. Where they can do so, MSF will work with agencies to implement them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Utilisation Rate of Take-A-Break Caregiver Respite Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"41 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what has been the utilisation rate of the Take-A-Break caregiver respite programme to date; (b) what constraints or challenges have been identified in its implementation; (c) how does the Ministry intend to increase awareness of this service; and (d) what assistance is available when caregivers themselves are temporarily unable to provide care, such as during medical procedures or surgeries.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Take-A-Break (TAB) is a home-based respite care pilot started by SG Enable in 2020 to support caregivers of persons with disabilities. As of 31 August 2025, TAB has supported close to 400 caregivers, utilising over 20,000 hours of respite. SG Enable continues to review and refine the programme to ensure that it meets the needs of caregivers.
If caregivers are temporarily unable to provide care, they can access respite care options including home-based services like TAB, enrol their care recipients in activities at community facilities or short-term respite care at disability homes.
SG Enable works with disability service providers, hospitals, Enabling Services Hubs and community organisations, like CaringSG's caregiver networks, to raise awareness of respite care options, including TAB. Caregivers may also learn about respite care options through the disability support website, Enabling Guide (www.enablingguide.sg).
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment of Effectiveness of Parental Education Programmes on Healthy Screentime Habits for Children","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"42 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the Government’s assessment of the effectiveness of its parental education programmes on healthy screentime habits for children; (b) whether these programmes will be mandated for new parents given risks of early, excessive screen use; and (c) what measures address the tendency for some parents using mobile devices as “digital babysitters” which can inadvertently impact their children’s development.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: In January, the Government launched Grow Well SG to support parents in managing their children’s screen use and promoting other healthy behaviours from an early age. These include the Childhood Health Behaviours Checklist at healthcare touchpoints and personalised Health Plans with lifestyle prescriptions through schools.
We have developed practical parenting tips on guiding screen use, conversation starters and alternative non-screen activities for parents to engage their children. We have made these tips widely available through channels, such as the Families for Life website, Parent Hub website (e.g., Screen Use Buddy), Parenting for Wellness, Digital for Life Portal, Parenting Resources in Parents Gateway and the Early Childhood Development Agency's Beanstalk.
In addition, the Families for Life Council works with community partners to offer parenting talks on screen use and device management during parents' meet up sessions and at community touchpoints. Parent Support Groups in schools also share screen use tips and strategies with their parent communities. As these measures are fairly nascent, we are still monitoring and assessing their effectiveness.
There are no plans to make these programmes mandatory for new parents, as each family's needs differ. However, we recognise the importance of starting them young on the right footing for screen use. As part of the SG60 Baby Gift Pack distribution, all Singaporean parents of newborns in 2025 receive a parenting journal with a concise guide to resources on healthy habits, including adopting no screen use for infants. A similar guide will be made available to parents of newborns in subsequent years through various healthcare and community touchpoints.
The Government will continue to engage parents to understand their challenges and strengthen programmes and tools to help their children develop healthier screen time habits in this digital age.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Waiting Times for Enrolment into Day Activity Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"43 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) to date, what are the mean and median waiting times for enrolment into Day Activity Centres; and (b) what is the projected waiting time for enrolment into Day Activity Centres by 2030.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: As of August 2025, there are 32 Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF)-funded Day Activity Centres (DACs) with a total capacity of over 1,800 places, and an overall utilisation rate of about 90%.
The mean and median waiting time for enrolment into a DAC is about eight months.
MSF is progressively increasing DAC capacity by 500 places by 2030. In the meantime, persons with disabilities may tap on the Special Transition and Engagement Programme that provides interim engagement to graduates of Special Education schools, or activities via the Enabling Services Hub pilot.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Legislation and Regulations to Mandate Organisations to Store Video and CCTV Footage","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"44 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information whether the Personal Data Protection Commission will consider reviewing the relevant legislation and regulations to mandate organisations to store video or CCTV footages for a certain period of time when a request for access of personal data under section 21 of the Personal Data Protection Act has been made.\n
Mrs Josephine Teo: Under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), organisations are required to implement policies and practices to handle access requests. These typically include having appropriate measures to preserve the requested personal data while the request is being processed. There are also additional safeguards to ensure that lawful and valid requests are fulfilled, including data retention requirements in case there is a review of denied requests, and criminal penalties for intentional concealment or destruction of records to avoid access requests.
The Ministry for Digital Development and Information regularly reviews the PDPA framework to ensure it continues to align with our national objectives and remains relevant.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessing Graduate Employability and Strengthening Student-industry Collaboration Beyond Internships","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"45 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the Ministry’s assessment of the employability outcomes for graduates from Singapore's universities and IHLs; and (b) whether the Ministry will review current curriculum frameworks and education outcomes to better align academic programmes with evolving industry demands and job market requirements.
46 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Minister for Education (a) how is the Ministry further strengthening student-industry collaboration at a system-wide level beyond mandatory internships and initiatives such as enhanced internships, job shadowing, and project collaborations in polytechnics and ITEs; and (b) whether there are plans to scale up these student–industry collaboration initiatives to deepen applied learning and innovation.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Government closely monitors the employment outcomes of fresh graduates and workers through (a) the Ministry of Education's (MOE) Graduate Employment Survey conducted six months after graduation, and (b) the Ministry of Manpower's Labour Force Survey.
The employment rates of fresh graduates six months post-graduation have remained broadly stable over the decade, with some year-to-year fluctuations due to economic cycles and cyclical changes at the sector level. Median salaries for fresh graduates have continued to rise year-on-year, increasing by 3% to 5% in 2024. The long-term unemployment rate of younger workers under 30 years has remained low at between 0.6% to 1.2% between June 2024 and June 2025. Notwithstanding the current global and economic uncertainty, the employment rates of the 2025 graduating cohort as of June 2025 remained comparable to the 2024 graduating cohort at the corresponding time last year.
That said, many undergraduates and fresh graduates may be concerned about their job prospects in the current economic climate and their employability, given how rapidly new technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) are reshaping industries and jobs.
The Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) seek to align their curriculum with evolving industry needs, including through exposing students to industry-focused applications of AI.
First, IHLs regularly review their curriculum and course offerings in consultation with sector agencies and industry partners. Where appropriate, IHLs partner industry to design, deliver, assess and certify curriculum. For example, under the Nanyang Polytechnic's Professional Competency Model, two AI-related diploma courses directly involve industry in all four aspects. IHLs have also expanded their offerings of interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary courses, which allow students to gain exposure and apply their skills to multiple sectors and domains.
Second, the IHLs have strengthened industry partnerships for students to keep abreast of the latest industry developments, deepen their learning and gain working experience. Internships or industry attachments are already a graduation requirement for the polytechnics and Institute of Technical Education, and for most undergraduate programmes at the autonomous universities. Students also have the opportunity to work on industry projects as part of their curriculum, including through the Centres of Innovation and Centres of Excellence.
Third, the IHLs' curriculum helps students to learn about AI and equips them with baseline digital literacy and AI competencies to navigate an AI-pervasive world. Students also learn how to use AI within their disciplines and industries, and IHLs integrate industry-relevant AI tools into courses and partner with industry to create hands-on AI learning environments where appropriate.
Fourth, the IHLs have increased curricular focus on helping students learn beyond AI, by developing key competencies like critical thinking, interpersonal and collaboration skills, as well as the ability to work across cultures. These competencies are critical in equipping graduates with skills that can bring value beyond AI itself, and that they effectively navigate the workplace and be resilient in responding to future trends and changes.
MOE and IHLs will continue to monitor employment outcomes of fresh graduates and work closely with industry partners and sector agencies to align curricula with industry needs and provide students with the opportunities to deepen their learning through internships and industry projects.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Address Bullying's Root Causes and Ensure Children Develop Self-protection Skills","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"47 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Education (a) how effective are the Ministry's upstream measures in addressing bullying's root causes; (b) how will the Character and Citizenship Education curriculum be reviewed to distinguish aggression from legitimate retaliation; (c) what measures ensure that children develop assertiveness and self-protection skills; and (d) how do schools teach students to stand up to bullies and foster a civic, caring society.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Ministry of Education will provide a combined reply to this Parliamentary Question (PQ), together with other PQs which have been filed on this topic, at the next available opportunity. [Please refer to \"Management of Bullying in Schools\", Official Report, 23 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 3, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
48 Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the percentage of students in autonomous universities (AUs) who have had at least one session with a career coach; (b) whether students who sought career coaching have had better employment outcomes; and (c) what performance metrics does the Ministry use to evaluate the efficacy of career coaching and other initiatives to support graduate employment.
Mr Desmond Lee: Our Autonomous Universities (AUs) provide a range of Education and Career Guidance (ECG) services to support both existing students and fresh graduates at different stages of their career planning and job search process. These include organising career and education talks, sharing the latest industry and hiring trends, equipping students with job search skills, like resume writing and interview preparation, as well as access to career coaching services to guide students in their career directions or education pathways.
The AUs use surveys and student feedback to track the performance of their ECG programmes and services. The Ministry of Education does not collect data from AUs on career coaching sessions conducted. In any case, it is difficult to directly attribute better employment outcomes to any specific ECG programme or intervention.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing Safety Protocols for Overseas School Trips","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"49 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry is reviewing the safety protocols for all schools following the fatal accident during an overseas trip by a privately funded school; and (b) whether the Ministry is considering standardised safety protocol for all schools, regardless of type.
Mr Desmond Lee: The \tMinistry of Education (MOE) regularly reviews our safety protocols to ensure the safe delivery of school activities, including overseas trips. These protocols are applicable to all MOE schools.
Non-MOE schools have autonomy over their policies, operations and governance, including their safety protocols, to take into consideration their specific circumstances and activities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reports of Workplace Harassment and Bullying Cases, and Actions against Companies with Repeated Reports","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"50 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower (a) for each year from 2021 to date, how many cases of workplace harassment and bullying have been reported to the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP); and (b) whether TAFEP negotiates interim safeguards such as no-contact orders, remote work options, or re-deployment for all cases of workplace harassment and bullying.\n
51 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry tracks or takes action against employers with repeated reports of workplace harassment and bullying through (i) the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) (ii) the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Incident Reporting eService (iii) the State Courts and (iv) other reporting and whistleblowing channels.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP), through its Workplace Harassment Resource and Recourse Centre, provides employers and employees with resources and assistance respectively on workplace harassment. For greater reach, TAFEP partners various stakeholders such as community organisations and women's groups to establish referral channels and share about TAFEP's role in providing employees with advice and assistance on such matters.
Between January 2021 and July 2025, TAFEP received an average of 57 workplace harassment complaints per year. In managing these complaints and assessing the appropriate follow-up actions and rectifications needed by employers, TAFEP takes into account past workplace harassment complaints that have been made against the company. TAFEP does not track cases handled via other channels.
When TAFEP receives a complaint that requires follow-up with the employer, TAFEP will ask the company to carry out an independent investigation into the incident, in line with the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Workplace Harassment. During the investigation, if the affected party has concerns with well-being or safety, TAFEP will ask the company to consider appropriate interim safeguards. This could include no-contact orders, remote work options or re-deployment. TAFEP also requires the company to update on the outcome of the investigation, disciplinary actions taken against the harasser if the report was found to be true, and to address the concerns raised by the affected individual. TAFEP will also work with the employer to put in place proper harassment prevention policies aligned with the Tripartite Advisory.
TAFEP will report to the Ministry for Manpower egregious companies which fail to provide a safe environment or refuse to follow-up with corrective action.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Employer-employee Relationship in GRaduate Industry Traineeships and Mid-Career Pathways Programmes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"52 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Manpower what is the Ministry’s rationale for not considering trainees under the GRaduate Industry Traineeships (GRIT) Programme and Mid-Career Pathways Programme to be in an employer-employee relationship with their host organisation.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Member may refer to the reply to be given on 23 September on graduate employment and the GRaduate Industry Traineeships programme. [Please refer to \"Reasons for Lower Proportion of Fresh Graduates in Full-time Employment and Extent of Help from GRaduate Industry Traineeship Programme\", Official Report, 23 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 3, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Comparing 2024 and 2025 Graduate Employment Rates and Median Salaries by Course Cluster","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"53 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Minister for Manpower how do employment rate and median gross monthly salary of the 2025 cohort of graduates who found full-time employment, by each course cluster, compare with that of the 2024 cohort of graduates, by each course cluster.
Dr Tan See Leng: \tBased on our data so far, we have seen some improvement in employment rates from 2024 to 2025. As of June this year, the proportion of graduates in permanent employment from the 2025 cohort was 44%, compared to 37% for the 2024 cohort. We do not have data for the 2025 cohort by course cluster or for salaries yet, as this will be collected in the Graduate Employment Survey in November 2025.
54 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether workers who are required to attend rehabilitation sessions after having been caught vaping are entitled to have such sessions recognised as medical leave; and (b) what guidance is provided to employers in handling such cases.
Dr Tan See Leng: Under the Employment Act, only employees who have received a medical certificate from a medical practitioner are entitled to take sick leave. Employees who attend rehabilitation sessions will not be issued medical certificates and are therefore not eligible for paid sick leave. Employees and employers should discuss and mutually agree on a leave arrangement, such as annual leave or no-pay leave, so that employees can attend these sessions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Approvals and Reports of Abuse Related to Training Employment Pass","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"55 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower for each year from 2021 to date (a) what is the number of Training Employment Passes (TEP) approved; and (b) what is the number of reports related to TEP abuse that have been received.\n
Dr Tan See Leng: The Training Employment Pass (TEP) is a short-term pass of up to three months for foreign trainees or students to undergo training in Singapore. The numbers of TEP applications approved in 2021 and 2022 were 900 and 4,500 respectively. These were due to border measures that were imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Following the reopening of our borders post-pandemic, the number of TEP applications that were approved increased to 15,600 and 16,500 in 2023 and 2024 respectively.
Reports on TEP abuse have also increased from nine and 18 in 2021 and 2022 respectively, to about 200 and 150 in 2023 and 2024 respectively. The Ministry of Manpower has sent out advisories to educate employers on the proper use of the scheme and stepped up checks on TEP applications. We have also mounted several enforcement operations to tackle the abuse of the scheme. Arising from these operations, about 70 companies are being investigated for offences such as making false declarations in work pass applications.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Profile of Families Benefiting from Concessionary Migrant Domestic Worker Levy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"56 Mr Gabriel Lam asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in the past five years, how many families have benefitted from the concessionary Migrant Domestic Worker (MDW) levy for parents with children under 16 years old; (b) what proportion of these families were first-time parents; and (c) whether the Ministry has studied demand from first-time parents for MDWs in the months leading up to childbirth.
Dr Tan See Leng: Between 2020 and 2024, an average of 100,000 employers benefitted annually from the concessionary Migrant Domestic Workers (MDWs) levy for households with children under 16 years old. This concession is a reduction of the MDW levy from $300 to $60 per month for the first MDW and is given to all households with a Singapore Citizen below 16 years old. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) does not track whether these employers are first-time parents.
Households that hire MDWs in the months leading up to childbirth would be eligible for a concessionary levy when the Singaporean child is born. The application process and expected timelines to process work permit applications for MDWs are available online on the MOM website. These support households to plan for the arrival of their newborns.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"e2i’s Effectiveness in Supporting Retrenched Persons with Placement and Wage Matters","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"57 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Minister for Manpower over the past three years, how effective has e2i been in supporting retrenched persons find new employment including (i) placement rates; (ii) median time-to-placement; and (iii) wage outcomes compared to prior jobs.
Dr Tan See Leng: Over the last three years, the Taskforce for Responsible Retrenchment and Employment Facilitation, which comprises representatives from the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), Workforce Singapore (WSG), National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute (e2i), Enterprise Singapore (ESG) and the Economic Development Board (EDB), has continued to provide effective support for retrenched workers.
On average, from 2022 to 2024, about seven in 10 retrenched workers who received career coaching from WSG and NTUC/e2i's career coaches were placed within six months. Their median time to placement averaged around three months. Among jobseekers who were placed within six months, close to half received similar or higher wage compared to their previous job.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Employers' Responsibilities and Costs in Repatriating Migrant Domestic Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"58 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will review the requirement for employers to bear the responsibilities and costs of repatriating Migrant Domestic Workers (MDW) upon termination of employment, to provide for a more equitable sharing of responsibilities and costs between the employer, employment agency and MDW, while ensuring that MDWs are protected.
Dr Tan See Leng: Employers of work permit holders, including Migrant Domestic Workers (MDWs), are responsible for the full cost of bringing in and maintaining their foreign workers in Singapore until repatriation. The cost of repatriation is borne by the employer to avoid a situation where the MDW is left stranded in Singapore without the means to return home due to disputes between parties in a joint responsibility arrangement.
Employers are informed and are reminded of their obligations before their MDWs enter Singapore, and during the Employers’ Orientation Programme which all first-time MDW employers must attend.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Acceptance and Rejection Rates for Flexible Work Arrangement Requests, and Top Three Reasons for Rejecting","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"59 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Manpower in respect of the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests (TG-FWAR) which took effect on 1 December 2024 (a) whether the Ministry monitors the acceptance and rejection rates for formal and informal request under TG-FWAR; and (b) what are these numbers and the top three reasons given for rejections.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests (TG-FWAR), which took effect on 1 December 2024, aim to help employers and employees navigate discussions about flexible work arrangements (FWAs) and arrive at mutually beneficial arrangements.
The TG-FWAR sets out the process for employees to make formal requests, and for employers to consider and respond to these requests on reasonable business grounds. It does not mandate the reporting of FWA requests to the Ministry of Manpower, as doing so would impose significant compliance costs on businesses. Instead, the Government and tripartite partners take an educational and enabling approach in implementing the Tripartite Guidelines, which includes providing employers with templates, guides and training.
Employers who face challenges implementing the TG-FWAR, or employees who feel that their FWA requests are not properly considered, may approach the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices for assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number, Profile and Success Rate of Applications for SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"60 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Manpower (a) to date, what is the total number of applications received under the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support Scheme; (b) how many applicants are (i) successful and (ii) unsuccessful respectively; (c) how many successful applicants are (i) below 40 years old and (ii) aged 40 and above respectively; and (d) what are the top three reasons for unsuccessful applications.
Dr Tan See Leng: Ms Elysa Chen has filed a related question for the Sitting on 23 September 2025. We will respond to these questions together. [Please refer to \"Data on Individuals Assisted by SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support Scheme Since Launch\", Official Report, 23 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 3, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Migrant Domestic Workers with Caregiving Responsibilities at Secondary Residential Address","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"61 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Manpower what is the current number and percentage of migrant domestic workers who have been authorised to undertake caregiving responsibilities at a secondary residential address.
Dr Tan See Leng: Migrant Domestic Workers (MDWs) should only work for their employer at the residential address declared to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). Employers are required to notify MOM if they need their MDWs to take care of them or their household members at another residential address, and abide by certain conditions, including ensuring that the MDW does not perform the full load of housework in both households.
Based on the notifications submitted by MDW employers as of August 2025, about 4,300 MDWs are currently taking care of their employer or household members at another residential address. This is about 1.4% of the MDW population.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Workplace Burnout Reported in Past Three Years and Measures to Promote Workplace Mental Well-being","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"62 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what have the reported rates of workplace burnout been across different industries over the past three years; and (b) what further measures are being studied by the Ministry to reduce excessive working hours and promote workplace mental well-being.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) does not systematically collect data on workplace burnout. Notwithstanding this, to encourage employers to monitor the state of their workforce's well-being and address key work stressors, MOM and the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Council, in collaboration with the Institute of Mental Health, Changi General Hospital and the Health Promotion Board, have developed and made available iWorkHealth, a free online psycho-social assessment tool.
Based on anonymised and aggregated data of more than 15,000 employees from employers that that took up iWorkHealth in 2024, about one in three employees experienced work-related stress or burnout. The proportion has remained relatively stable since iWorkHealth was introduced in 2021. Given that participation in iWorkHealth is voluntary, the sample may not be fully reflective of the overall workforce or at the industry level. MOM and the WSH Council are working with Tripartite Partners to encourage greater adoption of iWorkHealth so that more employers can better understand their employees' state of mental well-being at work and offer relevant support.
While it is natural to feel overwhelmed at work from time to time, a conducive environment can help workers to reduce or overcome work stress. In addition to iWorkHealth, MOM has implemented a range of measures to promote mental well-being at the workplace. These include the Tripartite Advisory on Mental Health and Well-being at Workplaces, which offers practical guidance for employers in areas such as flexible work arrangements that enable employees to meet both their work and personal commitments, as well as after-hours communication policies to encourage proper rest outside of work hours. Launched by the WSH Council, the Well-being Champions Network also facilitates the exchange of best practices among participating companies and offers access to resources and training to strengthen workplace mental well-being.
Based on a survey conducted in 2023, more than 90% of firms surveyed had implemented at least one mental well-being measure. MOM will continue to work with Tripartite Partners and relevant agencies to monitor the effectiveness of our efforts and explore potential enhancements.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of Concessionary Migrant Domestic Worker Levy to First-time Expectant Parents Prior to Delivery of Child","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"63 Mr Gabriel Lam asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry will consider extending the concessionary MDW levy rate of $60 to first-time expectant parents two to three months before delivery; (b) what will be the fiscal and policy implications of such an extension, including potential beneficiary numbers and impact on levy revenues; and (c) whether the Ministry will study alternative support options, such as temporary levy waivers.
Dr Tan See Leng: The concessionary levy of $60 per month for migrant domestic workers is given to households with caregiving needs. Hence, it is extended to households with a Singapore Citizen below 16 years old, as well as other care recipients. Households would be eligible for the levy concession when a Singaporean child is born.
The Government will continue to monitor the need to extend concessionary levy or alternative support for expectant parents, and review our policies as necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Penalty Framework for Animal Cruelty and Abuse Offences","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"64 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry will be reviewing the penalties under the Animals and Birds Act for sufficient deterrence against animal abuse; (b) what measures are taken to enhance enforcement capabilities to identify and prosecute perpetrators of animal cruelty; and (c) whether agencies will strengthen public education efforts to raise awareness about animal welfare and the legal consequences of animal abuse.
65 Mr David Hoe asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the status of the review of the Animals and Birds Act (ABA); (b) what are the review milestones since 2023 and target date of amendments to the ABA; (c) whether higher custodial maxima, mandatory ownership bans and stronger investigation powers are in scope; and (d) whether interim deterrent measures have been taken pending amendments.
66 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for National Development (a) what measures are being taken to address the recent rise in cat abuse cases; (b) whether the Ministry will consider introducing provisions to prevent the posting of animal abuse content online; and (c) whether there have been cases of escalation from animal abuse to violence against humans; and (d) if so, what inter-agency efforts exist to prevent this.
67 Mr Alex Yeo asked the Minister for National Development whether an update can be provided on the review of the penalty framework for animal cruelty and abuse offences under the Animals and Birds Act 1965.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Animals and Birds Act 1965 (ABA) safeguards against animal cruelty and abuse. Under the current ABA, the maximum penalty for a cruelty offence is higher than that for a welfare offence. Repeat offenders are also liable for enhanced punishment. Where acts of cruelty are particularly aggravated, the prosecution will highlight this to the Courts to take into account for sentencing.
The National Parks Board (NParks) has started a comprehensive review to ensure the ABA remains effective in deterring acts of animal cruelty and abuse. This includes reviewing the penalty framework, such as imprisonment terms, fines and disqualification orders for animal welfare offences, and enforcement powers for better animal welfare and management.
The review currently does not include proposals to prevent the posting of animal abuse content online or increase collaboration on enforcement with animal welfare groups. To reduce disamenities caused by irresponsible pet ownership, NParks has launched initiatives, such as cat licensing under the Cat Management Framework and the Pet Ownership Course.
We will continue to take a collaborative approach in this review. For instance, Minister of State Alvin Tan had engaged the Animal Concerns Research and Education Society and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in July on their White Paper on Strengthening Protections for Animal Welfare. We agreed that while some recommendations will be challenging to implement due to the tradeoffs, we could adopt some recommendations as part of the ABA review and further evaluate others with partners. NParks will continue to engage stakeholders, such as animal welfare groups, pet business owners and vets to ensure that all views are considered. NParks aims to start public consultation on the draft Bill by around end-2026.
NParks will continue to investigate feedback on animal welfare and cruelty thoroughly. For instance, in the recent cases involving community cats in Yishun and Punggol, NParks interviewed key witnesses, reviewed closed-circuit television footage, and carried out post-mortem examination for the Yishun community cat, and found that the cases were likely the result of vehicular accidents.
NParks will take firm enforcement action, considering factors such as severity of the offence and whether one is a repeat offender. In line with its enforcement efforts, NParks also works with animal welfare group partners to increase education and outreach efforts to raise awareness of responsible pet ownership and the consequences of animal cruelty.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Allow Singles Especially Widows and Divorcees Aged 50 and Above to Apply for 3-room BTO HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"68 Mr Lee Hong Chuang asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider allowing single persons, especially widows and divorcees aged 50 and above, to apply for 3-room Build-To-Order (BTO) HDB flats in recognition of their housing needs and changing family circumstances.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: We recognise that widowed or divorced persons may be concerned about their housing options due to changes in their life circumstances.
First-timer widowed or divorced citizens with care and control of at least one child from their marriage may buy a new flat or a resale flat of any size, subject to meeting the prevailing eligibility conditions.
Under the Assistance Scheme for Second-Timers (Divorced/Widowed Parents), those with at least one child aged 18 and below are given priority when applying for a 2-room Flexi or 3-room Build-To-Order flat in Standard projects.
All other eligible first-timer singles aged 35 and above, including widowed or divorced persons without children, can buy a new 2-room Flexi flat island-wide. This strikes a careful balance between the housing needs and aspirations of singles and other groups of Singaporeans, given the land constraints we face in Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Electrical Safety Checks for Flats Undergoing Home Improvement and Enhancement for Active Seniors Programmes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"69 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Minister for National Development for HDB flats that undergo works as part of the Home Improvement Programme (HIP) and Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) (a) what mandatory electrical safety checks are performed; (b) what proportion of such flats in 2024 was found with electrical safety issues that may increase the risk of fires; and (c) what assistance was provided to such flat owners.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Since 2021, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) has been performing safety checks on the existing Residual Current Circuit Breakers (RCCBs) for all flats undergoing the Home Improvement Programme (HIP). Any faulty RCCBs detected during these checks are immediately replaced, with the costs fully borne by HDB. HDB also checks the existing water heater electrical installations and offers to upgrade installations that are not compliant with prevailing regulations.
Under the Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) programme, should households apply to replace their existing light switches with rocker switches, HDB similarly performs safety checks on the existing RCCBs, as well as the electrical wires connected to the light switches. Any faulty RCCBs and electrical wiring detected during these checks are replaced at a subsidised cost for residents. If HDB finds a lighting installation that is not compliant with prevailing regulations, HDB will advise the flat owner to engage a licensed electrical worker to rectify the installation, before replacing the light switches with rocker switches.
In 2024, around 5% and 28% of flats that underwent HIP were found with faulty RCCBs and non-compliant water heater electrical installations respectively. Less than 1% of flats that applied for rocker switches under EASE were found with faulty RCCBs. All faulty RCCBs and non-compliant water heater electrical installations have since been replaced. HDB does not track the number of flats that applied for rocker switches under EASE and were found with non-compliant lighting installations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Joint Environmental Impact Assessment in View of Close Proximity of Pulau Tekong and Changi Reclamation Projects","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"70 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Minister for National Development in view of the close proximity of the Pulau Tekong and Changi reclamation projects (a) whether a joint environmental impact assessment on the overall marine ecosystem has been carried out; and (b) if not, whether the Ministry will consider implementing such an assessment.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) for the Changi reclamation projects have taken into consideration cumulative impacts from the ongoing Pulau Tekong reclamation works. In particular, the most recent EIA for Changi North considered cumulative impacts of the ongoing Changi Bay and Pulau Tekong reclamation projects, and concluded that there was negligible to minor environmental impact.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Timely Replacement of Faulty Equipment in Public Playgrounds","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"71 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry requires that faulty equipment in public and HDB playground equipment must be replaced quickly; (b) whether there are provisions in relevant vendor contracts to ensure timely replacement of faulty equipment; and (c) if not, whether the Ministry plans to include such clauses in vendor contracts as part of procurement requirements.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Town Councils are responsible for managing and maintaining the common property in Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates, including playgrounds. Periodic maintenance checks on playgrounds and other facilities in HDB estates are carried out by the respective Town Councils.
Town Councils should rectify defective equipment expeditiously based on the prevailing industry standards, including Singapore Standards SS457 on public playground equipment, to ensure that the equipment is safe for public use. Town Councils' playground maintenance contracts typically contain clauses that stipulate rectification requirements, such as repairs or replacements.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Applications and Approval Rates for Lift Access Housing Grant","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"72 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether an update can be provided on the total number of HDB owners who have applied for the Lift Access Housing Grant to date since its introduction; (b) how many have been approved so far; and (c) how many HDB owners have been approved for the grant since its increase from $30,000 to $80,000 in April 2025.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Housing and Development Board (HDB) households facing medical or mobility challenges may tap on the Lift access Housing Grant (LHG) to help them move to a new or resale flat with direct lift access.
Since the implementation of the LHG in 2020, HDB has received 78 complete applications; 60 of these were approved, of which 12 benefitted from the grant increase in April 2025.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints Received against Pet Breeders and Ensuring Pet Shops Procure Pets from Licensed Breeders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"73 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the last five years, how many complaints against pet breeders have been received by the Animal and Veterinary Service (AVS); and (b) whether obligations under the AVS’ pet shop licences extend to ensuring that pet shops procure pets from licensed pet breeders.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: In the last five years, the National Parks Board received about 100 complaints annually against licensed and unlicensed pet breeders. Animal and Veterinary Service's licences require pet shops to procure cats and dogs from licensed pet breeders.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Profile of Applicants under the Family Scheme Category of Public Rental Scheme from 2019 to 2024","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"74 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for National Development for each year from 2019 to 2024 (a) what proportion of applicants under the Family Scheme category of the Public Rental Scheme are (i) single unmarried parents (ii) non-citizen single parents with Singaporean children and (iii) divorced parents; and (b) how many of these applicants have been successful.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Housing and Development Board reviews all applications under the Public Rental Scheme holistically to understand the applicant’s individual circumstances, housing options, and level of family support, taking into account input from social workers if necessary.
From 2019 to 2024, an annual average of 7%, 4% and 17% of requests for public rental flats under the Family Scheme were from single unmarried parents, non-citizen single parents with Singaporean children and divorced parents respectively. There is some overlap between these groups. During this period, about 4,000 unique applicants across these groups were successful in applying for the Public Rental Scheme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Maintenance Regime of LRT and MRT Lines That Experienced Recent Disruptions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"75 Mr Jackson Lam asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) what long-term engineering upgrades are LTA, SBS and SMRT planning for point machines and track components, including sensors, on all MRT lines; (b) what are the current inspection and maintenance regimes for the East-West Line (EWL) point systems; and (c) whether warning signs had preceded the EWL track point fault on 6 August 2025.
76 Mr Jackson Lam asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) how many signalling-related disruptions have occurred on the North-South MRT Line in the past year; (b) what is the aggregate duration of such disruptions and the number of commuters impacted; (c) what caused the 2 September 2025 fault between Woodlands and Yishun MRT stations; and (d) what remedial steps are planned to address such cause.
77 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Acting Minister for Transport with regard to the two power fault incidents on the Sengkang-Punggol LRT between 12 August 2025 and 15 August 2025 (a) whether lapses in routine maintenance have contributed to the breakdowns; and (b) if not, whether LTA considers the current maintenance schedule adequate.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: These questions have been addressed in the oral reply to Parliamentary Questions Nos 19 to 24 at the 22 September 2025 Parliament Sitting. [Please refer to \"Causes for Recent MRT and LRT Breakdowns, and Measures to Improve Rail Reliability and Review Financial Penalties\", Official Report, 22 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 2, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Feasibility Study on Safe Charging Zones at HDB Void Decks for Residents Using PMAs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"78 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Acting Minister for Transport whether the Ministry has studied the feasibility of safe charging zones at HDB void decks for residents using PMAs, to reduce in-home fire risks.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: To manage fire safety risks, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has imposed the UL2272 and EN15194 standards on motorised Personal Mobility Devices and Power-Assisted Bicycles respectively. There are currently no commonly recognised international fire safety standards for Personal Mobility Aids. LTA will continue to monitor the development of international standards.
LTA, together with the relevant agencies, will continue to review existing guidelines on the safe storage and charging of Active Mobility Devices (AMDs).
We will also continue to step up public education efforts on fire safety tips on the use of AMDs. For instance, through the on-going Be-Device-Safe programme, a joint initiative between LTA and the Singapore Civil Defence Force, AMD users are educated about the risk of AMD-related fires and how to safely use and maintain these devices, including the importance of safe charging practices at home.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Electric Vehicle Charging Rates at HDB and Private Car Parks, and Impact of Mandating Dual-operators","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"79 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) what is the median cost per kWh for EV charging in HDB carparks as compared to private commercial carparks; (b) what percentage of evaluation score is based on the operator’s proposed charging price in tenders for charging points in HDB carparks; and (c) whether the Ministry has studied the potential cost-reduction impact of mandating dual-operators in high-demand carparks.\n
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Charging prices vary depending on operator, location and charger power rating. The median Electric Vehicle (EV) charging price is $0.66/kWh for Housing and Development Board (HDB) carparks and $0.74/kWh for private commercial carparks. Charging prices are commercial decisions.
Tenders were evaluated on a price-quality framework where we weight quality more than price. Operators do not have exclusive rights to operate in HDB carparks; the Land Transport Authority may call a tender to install more EV chargers in future.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Lift Retrofitting Plans for Overhead Bridges in Fernvale and Extension of Programme to Sengkang West","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"80 Mr Ng Chee Meng asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether LTA can provide an update on the current status and future plans of the lift retrofitting programme for overhead bridges in Fernvale; and (b) whether the assessment for lift retrofitting for overhead bridges includes or will be extended to Sengkang West.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Based on the pedestrian traffic in both Fernvale and Sengkang West, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) will prioritise installing lifts at the pedestrian overhead bridges along Sengkang West Way near Block 496B, which serves a larger number of seniors. Three other bridges along Sengkang West Way will be fitted with lifts in the next phase of LTA’s lift retrofitting programme. The remaining three bridges in Fernvale are located near at-grade pedestrian crossings or are already fitted with ramps, and pedestrians near these areas have a barrier-free means to cross the road.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Implementation Timeline and Order of Roll-out for Two-carriage Trains for Sengkang-Punggol LRT","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"81 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Acting Minister for Transport regarding the 25 new two-carriage trains ordered for the Sengkang-Punggol LRT (a) what is the detailed timeline for implementation on both loops in Sengkang and in Punggol; and (b) what factors determine the order of rollout across these service areas.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: We are on track to fully deploy the new two-car Light Rail Vehicles (LRVs) for the Sengkang-Punggol LRT (SPLRT) by end-2028. Two LRVs have already been deployed, and the remaining LRVs will be deployed across the SPLRT based on operational requirements and prevailing passenger loading conditions as they arrive.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exclusion of Businesses from CDC Voucher Scheme and Appeal Outcomes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"82 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth for each year since 2021 (a) how many applications by merchants for inclusion in the CDC Voucher Scheme were rejected because they are located in non-HDB premises; (b) how many of these cases are successfully appealed; and (c) whether the Ministry tracks the number of businesses in non-HDB premises providing essential community services that are ineligible for the Scheme.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers Scheme aims to help Singaporeans households cope with the cost of living and support hawkers and heartland merchants.
However, there are instances where few or no heartland merchants are found within or near residential areas. In such locations, we have onboarded, on a case-by-case basis, small businesses that provide goods and services needed by residents.
To date, we have onboarded over 23,000 hawkers and heartland merchants to the CDC Voucher scheme, including those who successfully appealed. The CDCs will continue to work closely with key partners, including the Federation of Merchants' Association, Singapore, Heartland Enterprise Centre Singapore, and various merchant and hawker associations, to onboard eligible merchants in the heartlands.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expanding CDC Voucher Eligibility to Shophouse Merchants and Considerations for Appeals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"83 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) how many additional merchants will be included in the Community Development Council (CDC) Voucher Scheme if all merchants in privately-owned shophouses were eligible; (b) whether these merchants can be included if residents appeal to use CDC vouchers at these shops; and (c) what are the factors considered by CDC for such appeals.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers Scheme was first introduced in June 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic with two key objectives: (i) to help Singaporean households cope with the cost of living; and (ii) to support hawkers and heartland merchants.
In line with the policy intent, our aim is to onboard hawkers and merchants in the Housing and Development Board (HDB) heartlands, such as those in the National Environment Agency-managed centres and HDB heartlands, including shops which offer daily goods or services.
However, there are instances where few or no heartland merchants are found within or near residential areas. In such locations, we have onboarded, on a case-by-case basis, small businesses that provide goods and services needed by residents.
To date, we have onboarded over 23,000 hawkers and heartland merchants on the CDC Voucher scheme. The CDCs will continue to work closely with key partners, including the Federation of Merchants' Association, Singapore, Heartland Enterprise Centre Singapore, and various merchant and hawker associations, to onboard eligible merchants in the heartlands.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[],"onlinePDFFileName":""}