Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik
Singapore
“My remarks today have centred on four areas of concern: first, the need for a robust implementation framework governing the EUP; second, the increased penalties for wildlife feeding are accompanied by a proportionate social support; third, establishing clear safeguards around the expanded use of MCST management funds; and fourth, securing…”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. MOE has stated that the standardisation aims to ensure common baseline, while schools retain discretion based on individual circumstances. I have two supplementary questions for this.”
“Enforcement must be resourced to match the ambition of this framework and the community caregivers who have been looking after Singapore's animals long before this Bill, the volunteers who feed the community cats, nurse injured wildlife and staff our shelters must not find themselves on the wrong side of a law meant to protect the very an…”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for the reply. I have two supplementary questions. First, with over 13,500 flats reaching MOP in 2026 located in mature estates, is the Ministry concerned that this could paradoxically increase the number of million-dollar transactions rather than moderate prices, given that these newer flats in…”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, to conclude, closing the regulatory gap for personal imports is the right thing to do for our energy conservation goals and for fair competition.”
“Each group has unique perspectives and preferred communication channels. Will there be targeted programmes that resonate with their specific contexts? Second, will the Ministry commit to full disclosure of the assets managed under the Fund and to provide regular updates to the estates of contributors once the Fund becomes active?”
The complete record
Every one of 83 lines we hold for Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 2.
“My remarks today have centred on four areas of concern: first, the need for a robust implementation framework governing the EUP; second, the increased penalties for wildlife feeding are accompanied by a proportionate social support; third, establishing clear safeguards around the expanded use of MCST management funds; and fourth, securing compassionate support for families facing compulsory acquisition by HDB. Taken together, these are not merely technical amendments. They have real consequences for real Singaporeans. I urge the Ministry to address these concerns directly so that the Bill's intentions are realised, not just in letter, but in spirit, delivering outcomes that are fair, sustainable and humane for all.”
“The clause in question amends sections 59, 63 and 67 of the Housing and Development Act, "enabling HDB to recover fees, expenses and legal costs from any compensation payable, whether in cases of property vesting under section 59 or compulsory acquisition under section 63". According to figures released by MND, 203 HDB flats were compulsorily acquired between January 2020 and June 2022. Of this, 82% involved mortgage arrears. While this represents a small fraction of the broader home ownership population, each case is not merely a statistic, but a family in genuine financial distress. In light of this, I would like to pose two questions to MND. First, will there be a cap on the amount that may be clawed back from compensation payable to affected households. Second, for families who face not only mortgage arrears but other concurrent financial obligations, whether the Ministry will include a statutory floor below which compensation cannot be reduced by deductions, to ensure that no family walks away from compulsory acquisition with an amount insufficient to secure alternative housing. To prevent abuse, the floor will be activated as long as the Government is satisfied that the family is truly in dire straits through standard evaluation procedures already in place for assessing means. Sir, the Singapore Statues (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill introduces meaningful changes across multiple domains, affecting residents of all walks of life.”
“Management funds are, at their core, contributions made collectively by the subsidiary proprietors, residents who trust that their money will be managed prudently and in the interest of the estate. Any expansion of how these funds can be used, therefore, warrants careful scrutiny. Under the current framework, expenditures above a prescribed threshold must be authorised through an ordinary or a special resolution at the annual general meeting, ensuring that residents have a say in significant financial decisions. I would like to ask the Ministry whether these same safeguards apply equally to expenditures under the newly expanded scope. If a management corporation wishes to draw on the management fund for a social event or legal engagement, would the existing resolution requirements still govern that decision? I raise this because the expansion, while bearing good intentions, opens the door to potential misuse if oversight mechanisms are not clearly extended to cover these new categories. The use of management funds for legal services is of particular concern. Without clear parametres, there is a risk that funds could be directed towards legal proceedings that serve the interests of a few rather than the collective. I would ask the Ministry to clarify what safeguards are in place to prevent such outcomes and whether additional disclosure or reporting obligations will accompany this expanded scope. Sir, expanding what the management fund can be used for is a meaningful shift in financial governance for strata communities. Getting the safeguards right is just as important as getting the scope right. Sir, I wish to raise a final point concerning cost recovery by HDB in compulsory acquisition exercises.”
“Residents regularly flag concerns about pigeons roosting on aircon ledges, and some even have birds fly into their kitchens and balconies. I therefore welcome the Bill's stronger stance on wildlife feeding. That said, I would urge the Ministry to also address the deeper social dimension of this behaviour. A recent CNA article highlighted that the habit of feeding birds can go beyond mere recalcitrance. It can reflect social isolation and a lack of purposeful engagement, particularly among seniors. Penalising behaviour without understanding its root causes risks addressing the symptom while leaving the underlying issue unresolved. With this in mind, I would ask the Ministry to consider two complementary measures. First, to strengthen partnership with social service agencies to engage residents, especially isolated seniors, on the consequences of wildlife feeding, and to connect them with more meaningful social activities. Second, to pay the increased penalty regime with a corresponding uplift in enforcement efforts so that the deterrence is not only higher in principle but felt in practice. Sir, I turn now to the proposed expansion of the MCSTs' management funds permitted uses. In clause 16, the amendment to section 38(3) of the Building (Strata Management) Act 2004 states that "monies from a management fund may be disbursed for the following additional purposes: (a) to organise any social, cultural, educational or sports activity, or any similar activity, that benefits all subsidiary proprietors and occupiers; (b) to engage any legal services for the management corporation". In short, management fund monies may now be applied towards social, cultural, educational and sports activities, as well as engagement of legal services on behalf of the management corporation.”
“If the latter, what quality assurance mechanisms will BCA put in place to ensure consistent standards across diverse contractors and estates, given that MCSTs have varying levels of capacity and expertise. Sir, as of January 2025, the EASE programme for public estates has benefited 340,000 households. As the programme is extended to private estates, it is important that robust implementation and quality assurance frameworks are in place to ensure similar positive outcomes. Second, on post-completion maintenance of the EUP, the same amendment confers on BCA the duty to act as an agent of Government in management, implementation and administration of programmes established and funded by the Government for the upgrading of public spaces, infrastructure and facilities in private estates. While the BCA is given a role in consultations and site assessments, the Bill does not clearly address who bears responsibility for estate maintenance and upkeep after upgrading works are done. I will ask the Ministry to clarify whether this responsibility continues to rest with BCA and if so, whether commensurate support will be extended to them. Sir, neighbourhood estates are shared spaces that form a collective memory for all Singaporeans. Ensuring a fair, transparent and sustainable allocation of resources is critical to the longevity of such programmes. Sir, now, I would like to speak about the increased penalties for wildlife feeding. Clause 19 amends section 5A(3) of the Wildlife Act 1965, to "increase the penalties for an offence that relates to the intentional feeding of any wildlife in any place". Over the past year, I have raised several Parliamentary Questions on the management of our pigeon population.”
“Sir, the Statues (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill spans a wide range of topics, many of significant concerns to Singaporeans. Today, I will speak four amendments especially relevant to my work in Sengkang. First, the empowerment of BCA to administer private estate upgrading programmes; second, increased penalties for wildlife feeding; third, the expansion of scope for MCST management fund utilisation; and finally, HDB's cost recovery for compulsory acquisitions. Sir, I am happy to see that Jalan Merdu in Sengkang has been shortlisted as one of the private estates earmarked for the EUP. The maintenance of estate amenities has always ranked high in the list of concerns among both private and public estate residents. With respect to this amendment, I would like to raise two specific questions for MND. First, on Enhancement for Active Seniors (Private Housing) programme, clause 2 amends section 8(1) of the Building and Construction Authority Act 1999 to confer on BCA the duty "to act as an agent of the Government in managing, implementing and administering programmes, such as the Enhancement for Active Seniors (Private Housing) programme". Currently, the EASE programme for public estates falls under HDB. With BCA now undertaking management of the EASE programme for private estates, I would like to seek clarity on the implementation framework. How does BCA plan to partner with MCSTs to implement the installation of fixtures? Will BCA appoint contractors directly to coordinate installations and maintain quality control across all private estates? Or will MCSTs retain the discretion to hire their own contractors?”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. MOE has stated that the standardisation aims to ensure common baseline, while schools retain discretion based on individual circumstances. I have two supplementary questions for this. How does the Ministry ensure that the discretion retained by individual schools does not result in significant disparities in how canning is administered? For instance, between schools that have well-resourced student development teams and those that do not. My second supplementary question: what oversight or audit mechanism exists to review whether mitigating factors such as special educational needs and mental well-being are in fact being properly assessed before caning is administered?”
“Enforcement must be resourced to match the ambition of this framework and the community caregivers who have been looking after Singapore's animals long before this Bill, the volunteers who feed the community cats, nurse injured wildlife and staff our shelters must not find themselves on the wrong side of a law meant to protect the very animals they serve. Notwithstanding my queries and clarifications, I support the Bill.”
“What are the prescribed conditions that will govern this exception? Can a community caregiver clean and dress wound on a community cat without breaching the law? Can a wildlife rehabilitator administer oral rehydration to an injured bird? These are not hypothetical questions. They describe activities that take place every day in Singapore. The answers will depend on the regulations that are eventually prescribed under this Bill. I ask the Minister of State four questions. First, will the Government engage the animal welfare organisations and community caregivers in developing the subsidiary regulations under this Bill? Second, will there be a transition period during which enforcement action is not taken against bona fide community caregivers performing basic first aid? Third, does the Government intend to exercise the exemption power under clause 86 to provide the specific carve-outs for community animal welfare activities? And fourth, will the Government consider developing clear, practical guidelines, distinct from the regulations themselves that explain in plain language what community caregivers can and cannot do under the new framework? The community animal care sector in Singapore operates largely on goodwill, compassion and volunteer effort. We should regulate to protect animals, not inadvertently criminalise the very people who have been protecting them. Sir, as a cat parent, I want to know that the professionals caring for my animals are qualified, accountable and held to high standards. This Bill promises to deliver on that assurance. But assurance on paper must translate to confidence in practice. Pet owners must be empowered to use the register and recognise unqualified practice.”
“They include community animal feeders who look after stray and community cats, sometimes treating minor wounds or administrating basic medication. They include shelter workers and volunteers at animal welfare organisations, who provide day-to-day care and first response for animals in distress. Many of these individuals have developed significant practical knowledge over years, even decades of hands-on experience. They perform an invaluable service for animal welfare in Singapore – often without compensation and at their own expense. The Bill's definition of the practice of veterinary medicine in clause 2 is broad. It covers diagnosis of disease or injury, medical treatment, the administration of anaesthetics, drug prescription and the issuance of professional certificates. Under clause 29(1), it is an offence for anyone who is not a duly qualified veterinarian to practise veterinary services. Some of the activities currently performed by community animal caregivers could, on a broad reading, fall within this definition. I note that the Bill does provide an important exception. Clause 29(5) allows non-veterinarians to perform certain acts within the practice of veterinary medicine, provided these acts are not excluded acts and are performed under the supervision of a duly qualified veterinarian and in accordance with prescribed conditions. The excluded acts defined in clause 29(7), which include diagnosis, surgery, drug prescription and the issuance of professional certificates are strictly reserved for veterinarians. This is appropriate and I do not have any qualms with it. However, the practical boundaries of this exception remain unclear. What constitutes supervision in the context of community animal care, where there is typically no veterinarian on site?”
“Clause 83 allows the composition of offences, that is, settling matters out of court with a fine. Clause 85 confers jurisdiction on magistrates' courts and district courts. These are strong provisions, but provisions on paper do not enforce themselves. The Bill does not specify who will carry out enforcement on the ground. AVS under NParks will presumably continue in its existing regulatory role over veterinary clinics and animal related businesses. But the new framework adds substantial responsibilities. Investigating complaints of unqualified practice, supporting the Veterinary Council's disciplinary machinery, monitoring compliance with registration conditions and continue education requirements, and building institutional expertise in a regulatory function that has not previously existed at this scale. I will ask the Minister of State four questions. First, what additional enforcement resources does the Government intend to allocate to support the implementation of this Bill? Second, will there be a dedicated enforcement unit, or will these functions be absorbed into AVS' existing operations? Third, how many investigators does the Government anticipate appointing in the initial years? And fourth, will enforcement capacity be progressively scaled up as the framework matures and eventually extend to cover veterinary nurses? Sir, lastly, I wish to raise a matter that is sensitive, but important: the position of experienced individuals in our community who care for animals, but do not hold veterinary qualifications. Singapore has a dedicated community of animal caregivers. They include wildlife rehabilitators who nurse injured birds and monitor otters.”
“Pet owners will need to understand what these distinctions mean in practical terms, for example, that a veterinarian with restricted registration may only practise at specific establishments or under supervision. The Bill also creates new offences. Under clause 29, it is illegal for an unqualified individual to practise veterinary medicine. Under clause 30 to 33, it is an offence to falsely represent oneself or another as a qualified veterinarian. But these protections are only effective if pet owners know that unqualified practice is now a criminal offence and know how to report suspected violations. I would ask the Minister of State two questions. First, beyond the standard communications, will the Government work with veterinary clinics, pet businesses and community organisations to bring awareness directly to the point of service? For instance, through mandatory display of registration status at clinics, or through pet licensing touchpoints, where owners already interact with AVS. Second, will the Government ensure that complaint channels are not only available, but prominently publicised so that the offence provisions under clauses 29 to 33 have real deterrent effect? The consumer protection promise of this Bill depends not just on public education, but on the right kind of public education, one that reaches pet owners at the point of service and empowers them to use the tools this Bill provides. Sir, the Bill creates a robust enforcement toolkit. Clause 29(6) makes unqualified practice an offence punishable by a fine of up to $50,000 and imprisonment of up to 12 months. Clauses 30 to 33, criminalise false representation. Clause 79 empowers the appointment of investigators, and clause 73 sets out their powers to conduct investigations.”
“Sir, as a parent to two cats, I understand first-hand the importance of having qualified, trustworthy veterinary professionals caring for our animals. The establishment of the Veterinary Council, the creation of proper registration framework and the introduction of disciplinary proceedings are long overdue. There are currently over 690 licensed veterinarians which has increased almost five-and-a-half-folds since 2006, serving an ever-growing population of pet owners who rightly expect professional, accountable care for their animals. This Bill provides the legal architecture to meet those expectations. While I support this Bill, my concern lies with what happens when it is enacted. Specifically, I wish to address three areas: public awareness of the new framework, the resourcing of enforcement and the position of experienced but unlicensed animal caregivers. Sir, clause 24 of the Bill requires the Registrar to publish on the Council's website the names, practice details, qualifications and registration dates of all duly qualified veterinarians. This is a commendable transparency provision. For the first time, pet owners will have a single authoritative register to verify that the person treating their animal is properly qualified. But a register is only useful if people know it exists and know how to use it. The Bill creates new legal categories that will be unfamiliar to most Singaporeans. A duly qualified veterinarian is defined in clause 3 as a registered veterinarian with a valid practising certificate, excluding those whose registration or certificate is suspended. There are three tiers of registration: full, restricted and specialist. Each carries different conditions and scope of practice.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, to conclude, closing the regulatory gap for personal imports is the right thing to do for our energy conservation goals and for fair competition. My concerns are not with the Bill's objectives but with the practical details that will determine whether these amendments work on the ground, how we enforce at the border and how we safeguard against unchecked discretionary powers and how we coordinate across the many agencies involved. I look forward to the Senior Minister of State's response to these points. Notwithstanding my queries and clarifications, I support the Bill.”
“Where a regulated good falls under both the household and transport sectors, for example, an electric vehicle charger imported for personal use, it is not immediately clear whether the importers' obligations fall under MSE's or MOT's purview, or both. The Bill does not address this. The Bill itself does not address inter-agency coordination. This is not unusual. Such matters are typically handled through administrative arrangements. But given the breadth of the new regime, I would ask the Senior Minister of State to assure this Chamber that, first, there is a clear interagency coordination framework between MSE and MOT, as well as between NEA and other enforcement agencies with defined roles and responsibilities for each agency involved. Second, that NEA will have adequate resources, both in terms of manpower and technical capabilities to administer the new registration, inspection and waiver processes for personal imports, which will be a significant expansion of its current workload. I note, however, that the Bill's closing statement declares that it will not involve the Government in any extra financial expenditure. That is difficult to comprehend with the substantial new administrative functions these amendments introduce. Third, there will be a single point of contact on one stop service for importers, so that individuals and businesses are not shuttled between MSE, MOT, NEA, Singapore Customs and ICA, when trying to comply with the new requirements. Fourth, for goods that may fall within the jurisdiction of both MSE and MOT, such as transport-related equipment imported for personal use, the Ministry will clarify which regime applies to avoid regulatory ambiguity or duplication.”
“This Bill, by contrast, sets no such minimum. Third, on a waiver mechanism under section 31B. The criterion of good reason is inherently subjective. I will ask the Senior Minister of State whether the Ministry intends to publish guidelines, setting out the circumstances in which waivers will typically be considered, so that applicants have reasonably certainty and the regime is applied consistently across cases. Fourth, will decisions of the Director-General, particularly refusals of waivers and impositions of conditions, be published or reported in any aggregated form. Transparency in decision making is essential to maintaining public and industry confidence in the regulatory regime. Mr Deputy Speaker, my final point concerns the practical coordination required to make this Bill work. The Energy Conservation Act is jointly administered by MSE, which oversees the industry and household sectors, and MOT, which oversees the transport sector. The Act is primarily enforced by NEA. This Bill's expansion to cover own use imports will necessarily engage many more Government agencies beyond this existing arrangement. Enforcement at the border will require the active cooperation of Singapore Customs for commercial and postal shipments, the ICA for goods brought in at the land and air checkpoints and potentially, the Info-communications Media Development Authority for enforcement against online platforms and digital advertisements. For the industrial sector, there will also be a need for coordination with the Economic Development Board, which promotes industrial investment and the Energy Market Authority, which oversees broader energy sector.”
“That outcome would undermine public confidence in the regulatory regime and create unfairness within compliant importers who bear the cost of registration and those who simply do not bother. Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill significantly expands the discretionary powers of the Director-General of Environmental Protection. Under the new sections 13(2A) and 15(5), the Director-General may, at any time after registration or renewal, impose new conditions on or modify or revoke existing conditions of a registration. The Bill also grants the Director-General broad discretion under section 31B to grant or refuse waivers, based on whether there are good reasons to do so. I acknowledge that the Bill includes procedural safeguards. The Director-General must give written notice of proposed conditions or modifications and allow registration holder to make written representations before a decision is made. There is also an appeal mechanism to the Minister under section 17. However, I wish to raise several points on the adequacy of these safeguards. First, the powers to impose or modify conditions at any time is very broad. There is no requirement that conditions be related to the original purpose of the registration, no cap on the frequency of modifications and no requirement that conditions be proportionate. Second, the Bill does not specify any timeframe within which the registration holder must be given to make representations. This is left entirely to the Director-General's discretion. In other legislation, the Healthcare Services Act, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, and the Workplace Safety and Health Act, to name three, Parliament has seen fit to prescribe a minimum period, typically 14 days within which affected person may make representations or appeal.”
“A business owner drives across the Causeway with a piece of industrial equipment in the back of a van; a traveller returns from a trip with a new kitchen appliance in checked baggage. In none of these cases is there an obvious regulatory checkpoint at which compliance can be verified. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State to address the following. First, rather than building a new declaration regime from scratch, will the Ministry consider leveraging the trade information certificate framework under the regulation of Imports and Exports Act? That framework already provides the certifying matters relating to the import of goods and includes a provision allowing the Minister to prescribe additional certifiable methods. Energy efficiency compliance could be prescribed as one such matter, allowing importers of regulated goods to declare compliance through an existing system that Singapore Customs and traders are already familiar with. Second, for goods arriving by post or courier, will the Ministry be working with Singapore Customs and Singapore Post to establish screening protocols. Will parcel manifest or trade description be used to flag potential non-compliant imports? Third, for goods brought in by land through the checkpoints, what role will the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) play? Is it realistic to expect ICA officers, whose primary focus is immigration and security, to also screen for energy efficiency compliance? Fourth, will enforcement be proactive through inspections and spot checks or reactive, relying on complaints and tip-offs. If the latter, the Bill's deterrent effect may be significantly limited. Without a credible enforcement framework, we risk creating a prohibition that exists on paper but is widely disregarded in practice.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the objectives of this Bill. Extending our energy efficiency framework to cover goods imported for personal use is a logical and necessary step. This Bill will align all imported electronic goods with the energy efficiency standards and labelling requirements that already applied to goods supplied commercially in Singapore, ensuring a level playing field and giving consumers a consistent basis for informed purchasing decisions. However, I wish to seek several clarifications from the Senior Minister of State on the enforcement architecture, the scope of Director-General's new powers and the question of interagency coordination, particularly between the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE), which oversees the industry and household sectors under this Act and the Ministry of Transport (MOT), which oversees the transport sector. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Bill creates a new prohibition on importing non-compliant regulated goods for personal use, but it is entirely silent on how this prohibition will be enforced at the border. This is not a minor operational detail. It goes to the heart of whether these amendments will have practical effect. For commercial shipments, our existing regulatory infrastructure is well established. TradeNet declarations, licensed warehouses and customs checkpoints provide natural interception points, but the own use imports targeted by this Bill arrive through very different channels. Consider the practical scenarios: a person orders a portable air-conditioning unit from an overseas e-commerce platform, and it arrives via international parcel post.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for the reply. I have two supplementary questions. First, with over 13,500 flats reaching MOP in 2026 located in mature estates, is the Ministry concerned that this could paradoxically increase the number of million-dollar transactions rather than moderate prices, given that these newer flats in desirable locations are precisely the type commanding such prices? Second, several Members of Parliament have spoken about the income ceiling for BTO eligibility, which has remained at $14,000 since 2019. Could the Minister share whether the ongoing review on income ceiling is also examining whether households that exceed the ceiling are being pushed into the resale market and contributing to price inflation there?”
“Each group has unique perspectives and preferred communication channels. Will there be targeted programmes that resonate with their specific contexts? Second, will the Ministry commit to full disclosure of the assets managed under the Fund and to provide regular updates to the estates of contributors once the Fund becomes active? When the community sees tangible evidence of the funds being used responsibly – that a student has graduated, a family has been supported, a mosque has been maintained – it reinforces trust and inspires others to follow suit. From 150 contributors to thousands – this must be our trajectory. Every Muslim family should consider WMS in their legacy planning, not as an obligation, but as an opportunity to invest in eternity. Journeying with Families”
“(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Since its launch on 3 August 2024, only 150 Muslims have designated Wakaf Masyarakat Singapura (WMS) as a beneficiary in their wills or nominations. This represents merely 0.1% of Muslims over 60 years old, and an even smaller fraction of our entire Muslim population. These numbers should give us pause. WMS has the potential to become the financial backbone supporting the SCIS, ensuring the continuity of our madrasahs and covering the operating and leasing costs of our mosques. Beyond funding institutions and infrastructure, WMS funds are expected to flow toward social support programmes, education and youth development – investments that will shape the character and capability of future generations. Without adequate contributions, we risk compromising the very institutions and programmes that preserve our religious heritage and nurture our community's potential. WMS offers every Muslim in Singapore the opportunity to create this perpetual legacy, where there may be constrains to pledge other forms of Waqaf. Every contribution becomes a seed that continuously bears fruit – supporting students, sustaining places of worship and uplifting those in need. I propose that we significantly expand community engagement through diverse platforms: mosques, community centres, schools, professional associations and student societies. These sessions should empower our community with knowledge of the potential profound spiritual and social impact of WMS. I would like to ask the Minister: First, how will the Ministry tailor outreach efforts to reach different segments of our Muslim community? Our community is beautifully diverse – Indian/Muslims, Chinese/Muslims, Arab/Muslims, Malay/Muslims, youth, professionals and seniors.”
“It enables independence, dignity and full participation in society. I therefore renew my call for LTA to reconsider this matter, focusing not on whether residents can technically access buses, but whether our transport network truly serves all Singaporeans. Mobility and Liveability in Changi”
“Sir, the persistent gap in bus connectivity for Compassvale Crescent residents requires our attention. While the Government has repeatedly cited the 400-metre benchmark and the availability of 14 bus services in the vicinity, this technical standard does not fully capture the lived reality of our residents, particularly our elderly and persons with disabilities. Singapore is rapidly ageing. By 2030, one in four citizens will be aged 65 and above. Simultaneously, we are building a more inclusive society that recognises the needs of persons with physical disabilities. For these residents, even a 400-metre walk is not merely inconvenient. It can be a genuine barrier. Seniors with reduced mobility, persons using wheelchairs or walking aids, those recovering from medical procedures and individuals managing chronic conditions may find this distance insurmountable, especially in our tropical heat. The distinction between technical accessibility and practical accessibility matters profoundly. On paper, Compassvale Crescent is served. In practice, vulnerable residents face daily challenges that prevent them from accessing essential services, healthcare and community activities. I acknowledge the LTA's concern about trade-offs. Extending Bus 371 would increase journey times for existing commuters. However, I urge the authorities to explore creative solutions, perhaps introducing a new short loop feeder service that connects Compassvale Crescent directly to Sengkang MRT – without affecting existing routes or a community shuttle service piloted specifically for those with mobility challenges, our Bus Connectivity Enhancement Programme should embody our national values of inclusivity and care for vulnerable. Good bus connectivity is not a luxury.”
“I have two clarifications for Minister of State Tan. Regarding the pigeon management plan, as mentioned in my cut, can the Minister of State provide a projected timeline, even an indicative one, for when all the remaining Town Councils can expect to be covered, maybe especially Sengkang? And the other one is, would the Ministry be willing to share the specifications of the netting solution being trialled with Town Councils, so that Town Councils that wish to proceed may carry out their own installations in affected estates without having to wait out for the conclusion of the trial?”
“Our residents deserve clean, safe and hygienic living environments free from preventable health hazards and unnecessary financial burdens.”
“Sir, while I acknowledge the encouraging 50% reduction in pigeon population across the Town Councils undergoing the NParks pilot, I must emphasise the urgency of this issue. Pigeons are not merely a nuisance, they pose genuine health risk. Their droppings carry dangerous diseases, such as cryptococcosis, histoplasmosis and psittacosis. When dried droppings turn to dust, residents inhale contaminated particles that can cause severe respiratory infections, particularly affecting our elderly and immuno-compromised individuals. Beyond health concerns, residents bear the financial cost. A constituent shared that he had to engage an air-conditioning specialist to clean his compressor unit because pigeons had defecated on it repeatedly. He paid out of pocket for a problem not of his making. How many more residents are silently suffering similar inconveniences and expenses? I am concerned about the pace of the roll-out. The NParks pilot began in July, 2024, with three Town Councils and only expanded to three more in June 2025 nearly a year later. With many estates still experiencing persistent pigeon problems, can the Minister provide a clear timeline for extending this programme to all remaining Town Councils? Residents in affected areas cannot wait indefinitely for relief. Regarding the 35-unit netting trial, I propose that the Ministry consider reducing the trial duration to gather sufficient data more quickly. This would allow effective solutions to be rolled out to affected estates sooner, providing residents with much needed relief. Effective pigeon management requires Government leadership, community cooperation and adequate resources.”
“Sir, our recycling rates fell to their lowest point in 2024. As we launched the Beverage Container Return Scheme this year, we have a critical opportunity to harmonise and strengthen our entire recycling infrastructure. The challenges run deeper than contamination alone. While construction and demolition waste achieved 99% recycling rates, household recycling rates tells a different story. According to NEA's 2024 statistics, only 5% of plastic is recycled and 8% of glass. Much of what enters our blue bins is incinerated or exported rather than truly recycled. We need a multi-faceted approach. First, leverage Government procurement power to create guarantee demand for recycled materials. Expanding our existing green procurement frameworks to mandate minimum recycled content in construction materials, packaging and office supplies would provide the certainty recycling operators need for investment. This market signal would ripple across the private sector. Second, I welcome NEA's exploration of extending Extended Producer Responsibility to broader packaging waste, particularly plastics, which constitute a third of our domestic waste. Paired with mandated recycle content requirements, this would address the economic barriers that currently make only 5% plastic recycling viable. Third, upgrade our blue bin system progressively through pilots in new estates. Introducing organic waste segregation first supported by smart bins with contamination sensors. Singapore's zero waste ambition requires recycling that actually recycles. Our citizens deserve a system with environmental integrity and economic viability. Collection of Recyclables by Public Waste Collectors”
“Start with data collection to understand the scale, pilot workplace frameworks with willing employers, develop realistic best practises across sectors. Research shows employees who balance work with caregiving face higher stress and reduced productivity. Supporting them through structured leave can improve well-being while paying it for itself through better retention and productivity. Yes, we have re-entry programmes. Yes, we have flexible work guidelines. But let us be honest. By the time someone needs reskilling to re-enter the workforce, we have already lost years of their contribution. Prevention is better than cure. Supporting eldercare is not just a compassionate policy. It is smart economic policy. We cannot afford to lose 87,000 workers, many in their most productive years, to a challenge we have simply chosen not to address proactively. The question is not whether we can afford to act. It is whether we can afford not to. Senior Employability”
“Sir, we often speak about Singapore's ageing population as a demographic challenge. Today, I want to reframe it as a workforce challenge, one unfolding quietly in our workplaces right now. Many colleagues are part of the sandwiched generation, managing ageing parents while holding full-time jobs. The numbers tell the story. In 2024, 87,100 residents were outside the labour force due to caregiving, 86% of them women. Nearly half are in their prime working years, ages 40 to 59. These exits do not show up as unemployment but represent a massive loss of experienced talent. This is not temporary. Singapore's ageing population means eldercare responsibilities will only grow. Yet our policy focus remains unbalanced. We have made tremendous progress supporting working parents. It is time we extend similar support to caregivers. Workers age 40 to 59, our most experienced professionals, are stepping back not by choice but because they lack structured workplace support. We are losing productivity and institutional knowledge when we can least afford it. Current measures help caregivers after they have left the workforce through reskilling programmes and re-entry support. While valuable, this is reactive. We need proactive workplace support that prevents exits. The Workers' Party proposes family care leave modelled after childcare leave. Employees with caregiving responsibilities should receive six days annually, three employer-paid and three Government-paid. Those with multiple care recipients would receive two additional leaves. The recent Tripartite Guidelines on FWA requests are a start, but we need employer frameworks that make eldercare support standard practice, not discretionary. We must normalise eldercare conversations, just as we have normalised childcare discussions.”
“The current U-Save rebate framework is tiered by flat type, not by household need or circumstance. Is the Ministry aware that low-income families caring for sick or disabled members at home, such as those requiring home oxygen or concentrators, electric suction machines, motorised wheelchairs on charge or frequent bathing due to incontinence, face structurally higher utility consumption that is not of their choosing? Will the Ministry consider recognising caregiving needs as a distinct basis for enhanced utility support?”
“If we seek to reduce excessive academic pressure, we must also ensure that competitive intensity is not simply directed to other domains. The original intent of DSA was to recognise diverse talents beyond academics in sports, the arts and other areas of strength. That intent remains important. However, in a competitive environment, DSA may inadvertently incentivise earlier and more intensive specialisation. In some cases, this increases the risk of burn-out, injury or loss of intrinsic motivation. Without longitudinal data on how these students progress through the DSA pathway, whether they remain engaged, transition successfully or exit early, it becomes difficult to assess both the intended and unintended outcomes of the DSA pathway. So, in this context, could MOE consider conducting longitudinal studies to evaluate whether DSA supports: (a) a sustainable national talent pipeline in the respective domains, and (b) reducing both short-term and long-term outcomes for individual students?”
“Relatedly, how does MOE evaluate whether early high-stakes selection meaningfully improves long-term student outcomes compared with delaying such assessments until students are older? Second, as AI replaces more routine cognitive work, we must strengthen distinctly human capabilities. As structured cognitive tasks become automated, our advantage will lie increasingly in the human capabilities like imagination, collaboration, resilience, physical vitality and initiative. MOE has long emphasised 21st century competencies. In the AI era, these will become even more central. How are these competencies being embedded in classroom practice and assessment, and not just articulated in policy documents? Ensuring space for the arts, sport, recreation, project-based learning and entrepreneurial exploration will be critical. In an AI-driven economy, how does MOE ensure that these areas are protected and strengthened within the curriculum? Reducing the arms race is not about lowering standards. It is about aligning our standards with the capabilities that matter most for the future. Third, we should address concentrated demand for certain primary schools. Persistent pressure around Primary 1 registration suggests that demand remains concentrated in a number of highly sought-after schools. If we are serious about reducing competition intensity, structural supply deserves consideration alongside the messaging. So, could MOE consider expanding the footprint and capacity of high-demand schools by establishing additional campuses or increasing the intake in more locations? In doing so, what key factors determine whether a successful school model can be replicated elsewhere? Fourth, talent pathways must reflect long-term development, not early acceleration.”
“But if we stop there, we risk using a transformational technology merely to improve efficiency. I have four points to make. First, AI must be used as a pedagogical tool, not merely as an efficiency tool. Beyond automation, how might we use AI to redesign pedagogy? AI can provide real-time feedback, identify misconceptions early and support differentiated instruction at scale. It allows students to progress at different paces and receive targeted support without stigma. Used thoughtfully, AI can shift assessment from ranking students against one another to tracking their individual growth. MOE has also rightly spoken about reducing the arms race in education. AI could help us further rebalance the system, retaining necessary standards while placing greater emphasis on calibration and support. AI-enabled formative assessments provide real-time feedback, detect misconceptions early and adapt learning as students' progress, reducing reliance on a single high-stakes checkpoint. If such formative systems can be scaled up, we may have an opportunity to rethink the timing and role of high-stakes examinations. Research suggests that very early high-stakes selection does not necessarily improve long-term outcomes. In some cases, it narrows learning and intensifies anxiety without improving standards. So, if continuous diagnostic assessment can provide clearer signals of student progress and learning gaps, then early high-stakes exams may not need to carry such disproportionate weight. In that regard, will MOE pilot AI-enabled formative assessments at scale and could such pilots enable a recalibration of the timing and weight of high-stakes examinations?”
“Sir, in Malay. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The educational gap facing the Malay community is well-documented, but our understanding remains incomplete. We know the outcomes are unequal, yet we lack the granular data needed to design truly effective interventions. Let me be clear about what the three data points I proposed would enable. First, annual university graduation rates by ethnicity would provide continuous monitoring rather than sporadic snapshots. We track economic indicators monthly, yet assess educational equity only when politically convenient. This inconsistency undermines accountability. Annual tracking would reveal whether our interventions are working or merely well-intentioned. Second, data linking income and ethnicity in university access would answer a critical question: Are financial barriers or other factors driving the gap? MENDAKI subsidy data would show whether lower-income Malay students are accessing higher education at improving rates. Without this, we cannot distinguish between solvable financial constraints and deeper systemic issues. Third, dropout rates by income and ethnicity would identify where students are falling through the cracks. Is attrition concentrated among low-income families? At specific educational levels? Among particular demographic groups? Each pattern requires different solutions. The Malay community deserves policies built on evidence, not presumption. Singapore has the technical capacity for this level of analysis. Rebalancing Education for AI Age Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh (Nominated Member): Thank you, Chairman. Sir, AI will not just change jobs, it will change learning. MOE has taken important steps to use AI to reduce administrative workload for teachers. That is welcome.”
“To keep compliance manageable for SMEs, this second condition could be made mandatory only for companies above a particular threshold. To operationalise this, the National AI Council could coordinate with relevant agencies and consult the industry. For example, MDDI could take the lead in verifying companies' compliance with the conditions. In turn, only companies who receive this verification may submit Enterprise Innovation Scheme claims related to AI expenditures. Sir, I believe my suggestions are practicable and necessary to ensure that publicly-funded support for AI transformation does not come at the cost of our national talent pipeline in the long term. Similarly, conditions are already in place for some subsidy schemes. The Productivity Solutions Grant already requires companies to submit a description of the overall impact of their proposed solution and specify the expected productivity gains before the grant application is reviewed and approved. To conclude, the entry level jobs of today shape the industry leaders of tomorrow. Let us ensure that our AI transformation amplifies, rather than erodes the career opportunities that our young graduates have worked hard to earn. De-risking AI and Automation”
“Mr Chairman, the Government has committed a large amount of money to support industries in their AI transformation. In this context, I am concerned about how today's fresh graduates are already being impacted, and the long-term compounding implications this has on our national talent pipeline. In a survey of 250 local employers, 80% acknowledged that AI has already reduced their entry-level hiring. As Members from both sides of the House have spoken about this problem, I will not belabour the point further. Today, I would like to provide a proposal which I hope the Government will consider. From the Enterprise Innovation Scheme to the Productivity Solutions Grant, in exchange for the Government's support, stronger guardrails need to be established to prevent this support from accelerating the displacement of entry-level ones. Broadly, I suggest two conditions to be added for all AI-related roles and subsidy schemes. First, at the minimum, companies should be required to submit a structured declaration detailing how their AI transformation efforts are expected to impact HR decisions, particularly for entry-level roles. How many such roles will be eliminated or redesigned, and what career development support will be made available to affected employees? This declaration will serve two purposes – to prompt companies to consider shaping their transformation efforts to protect their own talent pipeline and provide the Government with important insights on how entry-level roles may be impacted qualitatively and quantitatively across industries. Second, companies should be required to commit to a sustained level of entry-level roles and ensure structured development opportunities for entry level highest.”
“In fact, we have a strong support system in the prison where we not only look after them, we customise their rehab process. The curriculum that we do for them is different. In a sense, we want to care for them. We understand what they are going through. And the data that we have is not only what we collect from survey and from questionnaire. We also have a link to the National Healthcare system. So, today, we are much more connected. We have the data and at the same time, we also work with the community services or organisation, for example, Minds and also IMH, to see how we can help them upon their release. So, this is something that we are not only familiar, we have been doing this for many years. We understand their needs and we want to continue to take care of them. But I must say it is not easy, but we will do our best.”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman. I would like to thank Senior Minister of State Faishal for the response earlier. I have three clarifications. I welcome the prison services screening process where mental health history collected upon admission to prison or the Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC) is then used to tailor individualised rehabilitation programmes for each inmate. I would like to ask whether outcomes are tracked to assess whether those with mental health conditions have higher recidivism rates compared to the general inmate population. Second, given that the screening relies partly on self-reported questionnaires, is the Ministry concerned that the actual prevalence of mental health conditions among drug abusers may be significantly under-reported? And finally, a reply to my earlier Parliamentary Questions, stated that Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) does not collect mental health data on arrested drug abusers. This means there is a gap. Does the Ministry see value in closing this gap, so that we have a more complete picture of the mental health needs of all drug abusers in contact with the system, not just those in the prison or DRC in our fight to reduce recidivism? Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. With due respect, I think the Member may not truly understand the process of how we are able to find out whether the person has mental health. So, essentially CNB will arrest the person. So, at that stage, because of the investigation process and also putting the person in remand, CNB would not have the chance to know if he or she has a mental health issue. It is only when the person enters remand, the prison, then we will assess. We assess everyone; as I shared in my answer, physical and mental health.”
“Beyond data collection, I urge the Government to strengthen community partnerships that specifically addresses mental health alongside addiction. Every recovering individual should have ready access to integrated support to help them with underlying mental health conditions that may have contributed to their drug use. Without this, we are releasing individuals who have served their time in the DRC, facing the same psychological struggles that led them to drugs initially. The decline in recidivism shows progress. Let us build on this momentum by ensuring our approach includes mental health data and integrated support services to help more individuals break free from addiction for good. I look forward to the Minister's response. Ex-offenders and Yellow Ribbon”
“Sir, while I note the welcome decline in the two-year recidivism rate for the 2023 Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC) cohort to 26.1%, down from 30.8% the previous year, yet this still means that more than one in four individuals return to drug abuse within two years of release. Behind these statistics are individuals struggling with challenges we may not be adequately addressing. MHA has recognised that repeat drug abusers face significant barriers: the lack of prosocial networks due to being in and out of the system and difficulty in maintaining employment. Yet what remains insufficiently examined is the mental health dimension underlying these challenges. The 2024 Singapore Health and Lifestyle Survey demonstrates strong links between drug abuse and mental health conditions such as anxiety, depression and insomnia. This suggests that for individuals cycling in and out of the system, losing jobs and lacking stable support networks, the psychological toll can be devastating, potentially driving them back to the very substance we are trying to help them avoid. The Singapore Prison Service attributes recent improvements to evidence-informed throughcare drug rehabilitation regime with strong community support. However, evidence-informed approaches require comprehensive data. We currently lack systematic data on the mental health profiles of those arrested for drug abuse. I therefore ask the Minister, does the Ministry plan to collect data on the mental health status of individuals arrested for drug-related offences? If so, will this data be made available to researchers or policymakers to better inform our rehabilitation strategies?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have three supplementary questions for the Minister of State. The Minister of State mentioned that there is 80% of enrolled families that have used CDA monies to defray the cost. Can the Minister of State share what proportion of enrolled families come from lower-income households, those with per capita household income of $1,500 or below, and whether the absence of means-tested subsidies has been a barrier to participation for such families; and if so, what the Ministry intends to do about it?”
“They are signals that the conditions for forming a family do not yet feel sufficiently stable or attainable to many. If Budget 2026 is serious about strengthening families, the support it offers must speak not only to households already formed but also to those still deciding whether they can afford to form one. Flexible support that falls off at age cut-offs, programmes whose reach falls short of eligible need and subsidy expansions that arrive later than necessary may each appear defensible in isolation, but taken together, they risk reinforcing the very hesitation that policy design should be working to reduce, not entrench. Nonetheless, I support the Budget.”
“(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to close not with demography but with equity, because that is ultimately what each of these three points is about. Every family the Government has acknowledged as deserving support through fee cap reduction, through expanded subsidy thresholds and through ComLink+ design, should receive that support well with predictability, without arbitrary age cut-offs, without a nine-month gap between announcement and delivery, and not only if they happen to be among the 10,000 families with a coach already assigned to them, The three asks I have made today are specific and proportionate, a published review of whether the structure of support for families with post-primary school age children is well matched to the cost they actually bear; a stated coverage target and coach investment plan for ComLink+; and for the last point, an explanation on why April 2026 is not feasible as a start date, and if the gap cannot be closed, a transitional bridging measure from families who are caught waiting using instruments that the Government has deployed before. Sir, these are not only questions about families already in the system. The same conditions, cost uncertainty and the gap between announcement and delivery are shaping whether the next generation of families forms at all. Just this week, The Straits Times reported that 2025 recorded the lowest number of marriages in Singapore since 2020, a third consecutive year of decline. Researchers point to longer-term shifts in how Singaporeans perceive marriage, but also to concerns that policy can more directly speak to – uncertain economic future, a higher cost of living and the need to be financially stable before starting a family.”
“Second, the scope of the ComLink+ programme. This programme is a serious effort that has looked at methods to address inter-generational inequality issues in a more organised and systematic manner. One method is by using a proactive family coach to help low-income families living in public rental flats. However, so far, this programme only involves approximately 10,000 families, whereas the number of eligible families is far greater. Budget 2026 increases the support package for families that are already in this programme but does not state any targets or plans to increase the number and the training of coaches. I would like to ask the relevant Ministry, what is the estimated number of families that are eligible but not yet included in this programme, as well as the targets for recruiting new coaches in this Budget. Third, the time gap between announcement and implementation of preschool subsidies. Raising the income ceiling for preschool subsidies from $12,000 to $15,000 and the student care fee assistance ceiling from $4,500 to $6,500 are appropriate steps and I fully support them. However, both these changes only take effect in January 2027. I would like to ask why these measures cannot take effect earlier, for instance, in April 2026, given that the necessary infrastructure already exists. A family earning $13,500 per month, which is above the current subsidy ceiling but below the new ceiling, still has to bear higher costs for another nine months. I ask that the relevant Ministry to consider whether interim transitional measures, such as those previously implemented through GST offset packages and CDC vouchers, can be introduced for families in this group.”
“So, what specifically requires this expansion to wait until January 2027 rather than taking effect at the start of the financial year in April 2026? If this is a deliberate policy decision rather than one driven by operational constraints, we must recognise that the families who were promised this relief will continue to bear a significant financial burden for an additional nine months. A bridging measure will also be welcome; it is not unusual. When GST went up, the Government did not simply announce the increase and leave the lower-income households to absorb the gap until the next Budget. Offset packages were timed deliberately to cushion the transition. CDC vouchers have been deployed at short notices because cost of living pressures do not wait for administrative calendars. That same instinct, targeted, time-limited, with a clear end-date once the new thresholds kick in is exactly what I am asking for here. The instrument already exists, it has been used before and it can be applied here again. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to summarise the three main points that I raised today. First, the gap in Budget 2026 for families with children above 12 years old. Budget 2026 allocates $500 in the form of Child LifeSG Credits to every Singaporean child aged 12 years and below. These credits are flexible and can be used for various household needs, such as groceries, transport and medical expenses. However, there is no equivalent flexible support allocated in Budget 2026 for families with children beyond the level of primary school. The cost of living for a household does not decrease as children grow older. Therefore, I hope the Government can look into this matter in future Budgets.”
“A coverage target will allow the Government to hold itself accountable to the programme's objectives. Third, on implementation, closing the gap between announcement and delivery. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister announced two expansions taking effect from January 2027. The monthly household income ceiling for preschool subsidies will rise from $12,000 to $15,000, benefiting more than 60,000 additional families and the student care fee assistance ceiling will rise from $4,500 to $6,500. I support both measures fully. I also note that the reduction in fee caps for both anchor operator and partner operator preschools, which took effect in January 2026, already provides some interim relief to middle-income families. But even accounting for that, a family earning $13,500 a month above today's subsidy ceiling and below the incoming one is still paying more than they should be for another nine months. The principle of their entitlement to support has been conceded by this Budget. A household with two young children that spends $1,200 to $1,800 monthly on childcare fees would have to continue paying this amount for nine more months. That expense is significant. I will ask the Minister whether a transitional budget measure, targeted specifically at families between the old and new thresholds could be introduced for the interim period. The January 2027 date is also worth pressing on. Singapore's financial year begins on 1 April 2026, and many budget measures take effect on that date, and this is not a new subsidy category being built from scratch. MOE and the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) already have the means-testing infrastructure, the disbursement systems and operator reimbursement processes in place.”
“The reason that number matters is this. Budget 2026 enhances the progress packages for families already in this programme – high quarterly payouts, better milestone incentives and more flexible disbursements. These are meaningful improvements, but only for families who already have a family coach. They do not reach families who are eligible but not yet served. They deepen the well without widening it. I recognise that scaling and intensive coaching relationship cannot be done overnight. Training effective family coaches takes time and the Ministry is right not to compromise quality over speed. But that argument, while valid, does not explain the absence of any stated coverage target in Budget 2026. I am therefore asking the Minister three things. First, to state the current number of eligible families not yet served by ComLink+. Second, to state the Government's coverage target, expressed as a proportion of eligible families and the year by which it intends to achieve it. And third, to confirm what investment in coach recruitment and training is included in this Budget to move toward that target. These are not an unreasonable ask for our flagship empowerment programme entering its third year. The stakes of this coverage gap extend beyond the families themselves. ComLink+ design is premised on early intervention, reaching families before their difficulties compound, before school attendance deteriorates and before debt accumulates beyond manageability. Every year, a family is eligible, but unserved, is a year in which the programme's own preventative logic is not applied. Enhancing payouts for those already inside the programme is valuable but it does not recover the ground lost while eligible families wait.”
“I invite the Ministry to clarify whether it was a conscious decision to limit flexible support to children aged 12 and below, leaving families with older children without an equivalent, or whether this gap has simply not been revisited as family expenses have evolved. If it is the former, I will appreciate clarity on the rationale. If the latter, I urge the Ministry to review whether some form of flexible household support for older children should be introduced in future budgets. In this regard, I echo hon Member Shawn Loh's suggestion that LifeSG Credits be extended systematically to all parents with children up to 16 years old. Second, on scale, ComLink+ coverage ceiling must be named and addressed. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Ministry has reported that ComLink+ is now supporting around 10,000 families in public rental housing. ComLink+ represent a serious and thoughtful attempt to tackle inter-generational disadvantage in a more structured way. The family coach model of proactive outreach, co-created action plans and multi-agency coordination represents a meaningful shift from passive assistance to an active empowerment. I have no concern with the model but with the scale. I am not comparing ComLink+ 10,000 families to the total public rental housing population. I am asking about families in public rental housing with children who meet the programme's own eligibility criteria, specifically households with at least one child under the age of 21 and assessed as requiring sustained support. That population is smaller than the total rental housing stock, but it is significantly larger than 10,000. I would ask the Minister to share what is the Ministry's estimates as the total number of families eligible for ComLink+ under its current criteria.”
“But Budget 2026 contains no equivalent measures for families with children who have moved beyond primary school. There is no corresponding credit, no top-up and no new flexible support for household costs that continue to accumulate as children grow older. The $500 in flexible relief is available for the 12-year-old. For the same child, one year later, there is nothing new in the Budget. I want to be careful about what I am and am not saying. I am not suggesting that older children receive no support from the Government at all. Edusave contributions continue annually and families with children in secondary school can draw on those funds for approved educational expenses. But Edusave funds are ringfenced for educational uses – school fees, enrichment programmes and approved school-related expenses. They cannot be used for transport, groceries, utilities or the broader household cost of living pressures that do not disappear once a child moves beyond primary school. The Childhood LifeSG Credits address precisely those costs. Their absence in Budget 2026 for families with older children is a gap worth examining. I anticipate the Government may say that the Childhood LifeSG Credits is designed for the early childhood stage, where developmental evidence supports concentrated investment and that the Edusave system addresses older children's education needs adequately. I accept that developmental argument, but the question I am raising is not about developmental priority. It is about household affordability. A family with a secondary school-going child faces transport costs, utility bills and grocery expenses that are undiminished by the age of their child. Budget 2026 provides flexible relief for one cohort of families. It does not for another.”