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 2 of 2.
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Singapore's families have heard the announcements. They know what has been promised. What they are watching this debate for is something different, whether the design behind those promises is sound enough to actually deliver, whether the support will reach the families who needed it and whether it will do so in time and with the certainty required to make the most consequential decisions of their lives. That is the lens through which I wish to examine the family support measures before this Chamber today. Stepping in the right direction, enclosing the distance are two different things. The question is whether the way these schemes are built, who gets what, when they get it, how much and whether families can count on it, is working as well as it should. For a family trying to meet ends meet every month, these details are not small things. It is the difference between support that reaches them and support that is promised but falls short in practice. I will raise three specific points on that gap. First, on equity across childhood, the missing equivalent for older children. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister stated at the start of this year that the Government's goal is to give every child a good start in life and to support families at every stage of their journey. I want to test that aspiration against a structural feature of Budget 2026 that I do not think has received sufficient attention. Budget 2026 provides $500 in Childhood LifeSG Credits for every Singaporean child aged 12 and below. These Credits are flexible, usable at a wider range of physical and online merchants for groceries, pharmacy items, transport and daily household expenses. They are meaningful and a welcomed form of support.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. With reference to the 2023 molestation case involving the three victims, ages one to two years old, that are under a gag order imposed by the Courts, I have two supplementary questions. The first question: were the parents of the other unaffected children informed of the safety violations? Question two: while ECDA and the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) have restricted new enrolment into the preschool, were parents of these new children informed of the recent safety violations?”
“Thank you, Speaker. Since small beverage producers may likely pass the compliance cost to consumers, what percentage price increase does the Ministry consider acceptable for consumers to bear as a result of this scheme? And was this consumer impact factored into the decision to set the grant at only $2,500?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for Minister of State Goh: first, whether the Ministry has engaged social service agencies or family service centres to gather feedback on how current eligibility criteria affect caregiving households. And number question two, whether the Ministry can share a timeline for any planned review of subsidy eligibility frameworks affecting young families.”
“So, in general, Singapore in terms of our region, I think we are still fifth, so, I guess there is still room for improvement, even though in terms of medal tally we had exceeded, as compared to previous years.”
“Okay, thank you to the hon Member for the clarification. So, for the first point that he made, it was a proposal. Sorry, if I mentioned "amendment". And for the second item, with regard to the performance during the 2025 SEA Games, even though we had broken a few records, there are some sports that were not doing well, for example, football and badminton.”
“Demonstrate that SportSG has the capability on these expanded responsibilities, while also fixing the problems that led to disappointing results. I also urge consideration of the amendments I have proposed: maintain the Council size at 15 and extend meaningful support to past athletes who have already served Singapore. We continue to believe that those who have already given their best years to Singapore's sporting glory deserve the same consideration in our promise to future athletes. Let us pass a Bill that is not just forward looking but also well-governed, adequately resourced, accountable and fair to all who have contributed to Singapore's sporting legacy. Let us ensure that when we host or compete in future regional Games, we can point to this legislation as a turning point that led to sustained sporting excellence. Our athletes have done their part. Now it is time for us to do ours. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.”
“I will also propose practical support mechanisms. Could we provide additional CPF contributions for athletes who hit performance targets, including those who have represented Singapore at SEA Games and other regional competitions? Could SportSG support the healthcare needs of our past athletes, especially for conditions which were associated with their sporting careers, as brought up by Ms Sylvia Lim on 6 July 2023? These are athletes who have represented Singapore with pride, who have stood on podiums wearing our flag. Our 2025 SEA Games athletes and those who came before them surely deserve more that career counselling. We can provide concrete financial instruments that secure their futures. Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill contains much to support the recognition of mind sports, the commitment to athlete welfare and the modernisation of SportSG's functions. This represents genuine progress. But progress requires not just good intentions but sound governance and demonstrated accountability. A Council of 25 is a recipe for inefficiency. Expanded institutional responsibilities without demonstrated capability and accountability for past spending is putting the cart before the horse. Our performance at the 2025 SEA Games should serve as a wake-up call. We cannot continue expanding mandates without first addressing the fundamental issues that have limited our sporting success. Our athletes gave everything at those Games. Now we must ensure that our institutions match their commitment with excellence of our own. I urge the Minister to address these concerns directly. Show us the performance analysis from SEA Games: explain what went wrong and what will change.”
“Our athletes who completed at SEA Games 2025 worked with the system we gave them. If that system underperformed, the responsibility lies not with them, but with us, with the structures, funding and strategic direction we provided. We owe them answers before we ask them to trust a new expanded system. Mr Deputy Speaker, clause 6 seeks to empower SportSG to provide educational and career support to athletes, both active and retired. This is genuinely welcome and represents a more holistic approach to athlete welfare. For too long, talented young Singaporeans have hesitated to pursue sporting excellence because they feared an uncertain future after retirement. By providing structured educational pathways and career transition support, we make sports a viable life choice, not a risky gamble. This will unlock talent that currently goes untapped. Perhaps, if we have implemented such support earlier, we might have retained more athletes who could have contributed to stronger SEA Games' performances. How many potential medalists chose safer career paths because the sporting pathway seems too precarious? However, I must ask, what about our past athletes? Many former national athletes, including those who represented us at previous SEA Games, struggle after retirement. Having sacrificed their peak earning years and educational opportunities for Singapore's sporting glory, some face financial difficulties, struggle to enter the workforce or lack credentials for career advancement. Will the Government extend retroactive support to these past athletes who competed before such programme existed? They deserve consideration, not just those who benefit from future systems. These are athletes who paved the way, who competed when support was even more limited than it is today.”
“I therefore propose the following amendment that the maximum Council size remains unchanged at 15 members with provisions for establishing expert sub-committees as needed. A lean engaged Council of 15 will serve Singapore's sporting community far better than the sprawling body of 25 where attendance is optional. Our SEA Games performance demonstrates that we need decisive focused leadership, not a committee too large to be effective. Our athletes deserve better governance, not bigger committee. Clause 6 proposes to amend section 8 to grant SportSG new powers to establish institutions for developing and training sports persons. This appears to pave the way for significant institutional restructuring. I would like to ask the Minister: is this amendment intended to move SSP from MCCY's purview to the SportSG's jurisdiction? Are there other sport excellence schools planned in the pipeline that would similarly fall under SportSG's management? If so, what is being done to beef up the capabilities of the SportSG to take on these substantial new responsibilities? Managing educational institutions requires expertise in pedagogy, student welfare and academic administration, not just sports development. Our performance at the 2025 Games provides a real-world benchmark. Despite years of investment and institutional development, what tangible improvements have we seen? Where are the success stories that justify continued investment in the current model? And where are the failures that demand course correction. Without this accountability for past spending, how can we have confidence in the expanded mandate proposed under this Bill? And without understanding what worked and what did not, how can we allocate future resources wisely?”
“The Bill defines Mind Sports as a competitive game based on intellectual skill rather than physical skill such as chess or bridge. This is an important and overdue recognition. For too long, we have conflated sport with purely physical activity. Yet, the chess player who trains for hours daily, analysing positions and studying strategy, demonstrates the same dedication, discipline and competitive spirit as any athlete. The bridge player who competes at international level exhibits mental stamina and strategic thinking that will challenge any sports person. By bringing Mind Sports explicitly under SportSG mandate, we create formal pathways for these athletes – access to coaching standards and the possibility of structured support. This modernises our understanding of competitive excellence and acknowledges that mastery takes many forms. However, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have significant concerns about the proposed expansion of the Council from 15 to 25 members, as outlined in clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill. The expansion by 10 additional members suggests the Government recognises the wider variety of sports and activities now falling under SportSG's purview. This is logical given we are adding mind sports and e-sports to the mix. But I must ask what is the strategic purpose of such a large Council? From a governance perspective, larger councils are typically less effective, not more. Decision-making becomes slower, coordination more complex and accountability more diffuse. There is nothing preventing SportSG from establishing sub-councils or sport-specific working groups with external experts co-opted on an ad hoc basis. This would provide the specialised expertise needed without bloating the main governing body.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, before I address the Bill, I wish to begin by congratulating our athletes who represented Singapore at the 2025 SEA Games. They competed with heart, dedication and unwavering commitment to excellence. Every athlete who wore our national colours deserves our recognition and gratitude. They trained countless hours, made personal sacrifices and gave their absolute best for Singapore. To them I say, "Thank you. You have made us proud". Yet, Mr Deputy Speaker, pride in our athletes' efforts must be accompanied by honest reflection on our sporting ecosystem. While our athletes competed admirably, our overall performance at the 2025 Games raises important questions about whether we are providing them with the support, infrastructure and strategic direction they need to succeed. Singapore's medal tally and rankings demonstrate that despite investments over the years, we continued to face challenges in developing consistent sporting excellence across disciplines. When we compare our performance to regional neighbours, some with fewer resources but more strategic focus, it becomes clear that our current model requires serious examination. This is the context in which we consider the Singapore Sports Council (Amendment) Bill 2025. This Bill represents a significant evolution in how Singapore approaches sport, competition and athlete development. While I support the overall direction and intent of these reforms, I believe we must scrutinise the details carefully to ensure that good intentions translate into effective governance and tangible outcomes for our sporting community, outcomes that our athletes deserve. Let me begin with what I welcome wholeheartedly – the formal recognition of Mind Sports.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I understand that the LQS and the Silver Support Scheme are two different schemes. But given that there is a progressive increase from $1,400 to $1,600 since July 2024 for LQS, whether the Ministry has assessed how seniors whose wages were adjusted by employers to meet the LQS, have consequently been pushed into the lower Silver Support tier. This is mostly for those elderly who are staying alone in their own household. My second question is: how many Silver Support recipients have moved from the higher tier to a lower tier, since the LQS increase to $1,600?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for the Minister. Given that Local Qualifying Salary (LQS), full-time equivalent as —”
“Mr Speaker, I have two supplementary questions for the Minister. First, whether the Ministry is aware, whether Singapore GasCo will maintain a strategic liquefied natural gas (LNG) reserve to buffer against supply disruptions and whether this will require an expansion of the current Singapore LNG Corporation (SLNG) terminal? Second question, whether Singapore GasCo will be subject to the same SLNG tariffs and charges as other terminal users?”
“However, for it to truly deliver justice, we must ensure that vulnerable workers can access representation, that time limits accommodate genuine hardships, that employers, especially SMEs, have the capacity to implement proper processes, and that our most vulnerable workers, including those outsourced, are not left behind. I call on the Ministry to address these concerns so that the promise of the workplace fairness becomes a reality for all workers in Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding the questions and concerns that I presented earlier, I support this Bill.”
“Currently, union members cannot be represented during discussions – whilst executives have an even more limited representation. For workers who are not union members, they will certainly need more support. Additionally, I would also urge that young workers be given more support so that they do not easily suffer discrimination due to lack of experience and knowledge. Second, on the issue of time limits and extensions. Workers who have been dismissed need to file for mediation within just one month from their last day. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have met with several such individuals during Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS). Typically, they are in desperate situations and they say that the one-month period is too short. Among other things, I urge that a discretionary approach could be considered in accepting late applications, if there are reasonable grounds. Third, relating to the implementation of the complaint handling process. Since employers need to have internal complaints procedures, we need to ensure that HR officers in companies have adequate training. This is especially important for small and medium enterprises, where their staff may lack the capability to handle the complaint processes properly. Mr Deputy Speaker, finally, we need to address a significant gap in this Bill, namely outsourced workers. The Workplace Fairness Act (WFA) does not cover contract workers, platform workers, and outsourced workers. They are the group that is most vulnerable to discrimination. I urge that a framework be established to extend protection to outsourced workers. This will ensure fairer employment practices for all categories of workers. (In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Workplace Fairness (Dispute Resolutions) Bill is a welcome development.”
“This creates a troubling situation where service buyers can specify preferred race, age or religion of the workers, forcing service providers to implement discriminatory practices or face contractual penalties. It is unjust to penalise service providers when service buyers are the ones making discriminatory demands. We are, as the saying goes, barking up the wrong tree. The UK's Equality Act 2010 addresses this through section 41, which defines contract workers and principals. A principal is one who makes work available for individuals employed by another party and contract workers are those supplied in furtherance of such contracts. This framework effectively extends protection to outsourced workers. May I ask the Minister, will the Tripartite Advisory on Outsourced Workers be updated to cover anti-discriminatory practices by service buyers? Does the Ministry plan to extend WFA protection to outsourced workers in future amendments? And if so, what is the timeline? How is the Ministry currently educating service buyers on fair employment practices and monitoring discriminatory clauses in service contracts? Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, the Workplace Fairness (Dispute Resolution) Bill aims to help individuals who face discrimination in the workplace. This Bill, together with the Workplace Fairness Act, represents an important step in protecting workers in Singapore. However, I would like to raise several questions and concerns regarding its implementation. First, regarding representation during mediation. We need to reconsider some regulatory restrictions placed on workers as they go through this process.”
“These statistics will help us understand whether the current framework adequately serves workers who may need additional time due to genuine hardship. My third point addresses the implementation of grievance handling processes. Section 36D(2) requires that mediation requests follow internal grievance handling, which section 27 of the WFA mandates employers to establish. While tripartite standards and implementation guides exist, I ask how many TADM claims involve employers who lacked proper grievance handling processes. This data is essential to access compliance and effectiveness. More importantly, have HR professionals in affected companies receive adequate training on these processes? What support has the Ministry provided for SMEs which may lack dedicated HR teams? Implementation presents particular challenges. I urge the Ministry to work closely with SMEs to boost their HR capabilities. Does the Ministry have a roadmap, perhaps over five years to help companies with fewer than 25 employees implement robust grievance handling processes? Without such support, the dispute resolution framework risks being undermined at its very foundation. Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, I must address a significant gap in this Bill – the exclusion of outsourced workers. Section 36A limits civil action to alleged discriminatory employment decisions made by employers under section 17(1) of the WFA. An employer is defined as a person who employs another under a contract of service. This excludes workers on contracts for service, platform workers and critically outsourced workers. Outsourced workers are among our most vulnerable, often older workers in lower income jobs. Currently, the Tripartite Advisory on Outsourced Workers does not cover anti discriminatory practices by service buyers.”
“Fresh graduates who may be experiencing discrimination but lack the knowledge, resources or union membership to navigate the system effectively, particularly those with less than five years of full-time permanent employment. My second point concerns the discretion to extend the time limits under section 36E(4). The Bill stipulates that dismissed employees must file for mediation within one month of their last day of employment with special provisions for pregnant employees. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have encountered residents during my meet-the-people sessions (MPS) who, having just lost their jobs, were overwhelmed by distress, mental health challenges and/or the urgent need to support their families. In such circumstances, one month passes quickly, and by the time they seek help, the deadline has expired. Section 36F(1A) allows the Commissioner to accept late request if there is a reasonable excuse. However, this term requires greater clarity. I ask the Minister what constitutes a reasonable excuse. Will the Commissioner adopt the broader, just and equitable approach found in the United Kingdom's (UK's) Equality Act 2010, which the Employment Appeals Tribunal has interpreted as requiring a wide discretion based on the factual matrix. According to a Parliamentary reply by Senior Minister of State Dr Koh Poh Koon in 2022, approximately 6% of wrongful dismissal claims filed with TADM each year exceeded the time limit. TADM still assisted parties willing to set settle amicably. I would like to know: is this proportion still accurate? How many of such cases actually achieved settlement, and critically in 2024 and 2025, how many appeals for time extensions were filed and how many were granted?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Workplace Fairness (Dispute Resolution) Bill before this House seeks to establish crucial mechanisms for individuals to seek recourse against workplace discrimination. This Bill, together with the Workplace Fairness Act passed on 8 January 2025, represents a significant step forward in protecting Singapore's workers. However, I wish to raise several important questions and concerns regarding the implementation of this dispute resolution framework. Firstly, on the matter of representation at mediation. Section 36(i) provides that individuals may be represented by persons prescribed under the regulations made under section 44. I seek clarification on whether these regulations will mirror the First Schedule of the Employment Claims Regulations 2017. Under the current framework, trade union members face restrictions. They cannot be represented during settlement discussions and executive employees have even narrower representation rights. While I understand the intent to facilitate direct communication during mediation, we must ask: are these restrictions appropriate for discrimination cases which often involve complex power dynamics and emotional distress? Moreover, I am even more concerned about vulnerable workers who are not trade union members. What support will be available to them? Will pro bono channels be expanded to ensure all parties can access legal advice about their rights under the WFA? Additionally, the current regulations only mandate parental representation for those below 18 years of age. I urge the Ministry to consider extending support to young workers who have just entered the workforce.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for MND. Out of the five cases that CRU has taken, how many of those cases are considered resolved and how long did they take? Second question, when can we expect the Ministry to decide if the CRU can be expanded to other towns – will it be after the one-year period pilot?”
“When we ensure that every family has stable housing, every person struggling with addiction has a meaningful path to recovery and every student has access to quality education regardless of their background, we strengthen the very fabric of our society. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.”
“Here, I want to emphasise that whilst I focus attention on challenges faced by the Malay community, assistance and support should be given to all who need it, regardless of their background. We cannot allow anyone to continue being left behind in the nation's development journey. Our approach is based on principles of social justice and robust data. We want a system that provides equal opportunities to all individuals. MPs from the WP will strive and continue to work to be a voice for all Singaporeans, including the Malay/Muslim community. We believe that a strongly supported society will benefit Singapore as a whole. When we help those who are marginalised amongst us, we will together advance all Singaporeans, regardless of their race or background. (In English): Mr Speaker, I return to the President's address. A Singapore that is home to all of us cannot merely be an aspiration, but an imperative for us to achieve together. The challenges I have outlined today in housing, rehabilitation and education require not just Government action, but a whole-of-society response. They demand not just policy changes but a fundamental commitment to seeing the dignity and potential in every Singaporean. I assure this House that the problems of those at risk of falling through the cracks, especially but not limited to Malay lower-income households, will be consistently highlighted in Parliament. The WP elected representatives will work tirelessly to be the people's voice and to continue working for all Singaporeans, regardless of race or background. I believe strongly that when we lift the most vulnerable among us, we lift all of Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, allow me to continue my speech in Malay. (In Malay): Mr Speaker, today I have touched on three areas where we need to continue supporting marginalised segments of society. First, in housing, we need to reassess existing barriers to entry. This will ensure that every family, including unmarried single mothers and individuals who cannot live with their family members, gain access to stable housing. Therefore, we call for applicants' relationships with their families to also be taken into consideration before their applications are rejected, and to expand the public rental housing market to meet the evolving aspirations of Singaporeans. Second, in drug rehabilitation, we need an approach that is not merely punishment and enforcement alone. The recidivism rate for inmates released from the Drug Rehabilitation Centre has increased to 30.8% for the 2022 cohort. More worryingly, in 2024, Malay offenders comprised 50% of all drug abusers arrested. We need more detailed data to include education levels, socioeconomic status, mental health history, employment status and housing type. Without these details, we cannot fully understand the complex issues that drive drug use, and will thus face challenges in designing appropriate forms of intervention. Third, in education, we need broader data sharing to identify community needs more accurately. According to the 2020 Population Census, only about 11% of Malay residents aged 25 and above held university degrees, compared to 35% of Chinese residents and 41% of Indian residents. To better understand how to increase this percentage, we call for MOE to track and release data on university graduation rates by race, and also to release data on school dropout rates by income background and race.”
“More recently, in April this year, he referred to Census 2020 data showing that only about 11% of Malay residents aged 25 and above held university degrees, compared to 35% of Chinese and 41% of Indians. MENDAKI's analysis of the same census data further highlighted that Malays accounted for just 4% of all university graduates in 2020. Mr Speaker, if we look at the historical context, then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong shared in 1999 that in 1998, 1.3% of Malay students dropped out before completing primary or secondary school, with the secondary-level dropout rate at 5.9%. Since then, there has been clear progress. According to recent CNA reporting, fewer than one in 100 students have left secondary school without completing it in the past five years. While there has clearly been progress in reducing dropout rates, the broader educational attainment gap remains stark. There is therefore a pressing need for more comprehensive research and greater access to disaggregated data. Only then can we understand the full picture where the Malay community stands, how their challenges compare with other groups and what targeted policies are needed to close the gap meaningfully. Mr Speaker, I call for several data-driven improvements. First, MOE should track university graduation rates annually by ethnicity to better understand educational outcomes across communities. Second, we need detailed breakdown of data to ascertain the percentage of lower-income Malays reaching university, including release of data on Malay undergraduates applying for MENDAKI Tertiary Tuition Fee Subsidy over the past decade. And third, MOE should release data on school dropout rates by income background and ethnicity to identify vulnerable groups requiring additional support.”
“As regard to integration of ex-offender, we recognise that Yellow Ribbon Singapore has made significant strides in supporting them, but more can be done to help ex-offenders reintegrate into the society. In 2025, The Straits Times reported that while there seems to be more employment opportunities for former offenders after release, other issues, such as, social stigma and personal challenges can affect their retention in those jobs. The career retention rate among former offenders who got jobs with Yellow Ribbon Singapore's help has dropped over the years. Therefore, we should examine the outcomes of initiatives like the Digital Literacy Masterplan and the Uplifting Employment Credit, including job retention rates and career progression. These metrics will help us understand the effectiveness of our rehabilitation efforts and identify areas for improvement. As we move forward, Yellow Ribbon Singapore should be empowered to play a coordinating role across agencies, ensuring that rehabilitation and reintegration of ex-offenders is holistic, sustained and inclusive. Mr Speaker, I now turn to extending support in education, particularly calling for a data-driven approach to better identify needs. In 2021, the Centre for Research on Islamic and Malay Affairs (RIMA) published "Dreams Realised, Dreams Deferred: Understanding and Addressing the Racial Gap in Educational Achievement in Singapore." A key point raised was that the Malay students persistently face an education gap. Then Minister for Education, cited two data points that illustrate this disparity. First, in 2021, he noted that 94% of Malay students who entered Primary 1 in 2009 progressed to post-secondary education, which is lower than the national average of 97%.”
“This includes better access to counselling, community-fostered mentorship and employment support. Youths who struggle with drug abuse often face significant barriers to successfully reintegrate into society. These include social stigma, employment challenges and weak social support. It is thus concerning that Singapore's two-year recidivism rate for inmates released from Drug Rehabilitation Centres has climbed to 30.8% for the 2022 cohort, significantly above the 21.3% rate for all offenders. Rehabilitation efforts must focus on better reintegration and breaking the revolving door between prison and society. The Singapore Prison Service's (SPS') Reintegration Hub and CNB's Supervision 2.0 pilot are promising developments. Hair testing, community supervision sessions, and referrals for housing and employment support are steps in the right direction. As then Minister of State Faishal Ibrahim noted in 2024, hair testing has a longer detection window, allowing reporting frequency to be reduced to once every three months instead of twice weekly under the urine testing regime. However, more must be done to ensure that recovery is not just monitored but meaningfully supported by ensuring that individuals have a strong support network that helps them rebuild their lives, not just to avoid relapse. To better tailor interventions, CNB's publicly available data on drug abusers should go beyond race and age to include other data such as education level, socio-economic status, mental health history, employment status and housing type. This allows us to grasp the complex patterns driving drug use or design appropriate interventions that truly address individuals' needs.”
“This may include exploring flexible and experimental models, such as introducing a universal buy-back scheme for ageing HDB flats, which can then be rented to Singaporeans at rates between commercial and HDB public rentals, offering larger homes and flexible options for those not ready for long-term leases. Mr Speaker, I shall now move on to my next point on extending support in rehabilitation for drug abusers. First, I would like to indicate my support for the overall tough anti-drug stance, coupled with strong education and rigorous enforcement in keeping drug prevalence low. According to the 2024 Singapore Health and Lifestyle Survey, the lifetime prevalence of illicit drug use in Singapore was 2.3%, while 12-month prevalence was 0.7%. The prevalence of illicit drug consumption in Singapore was much lower than rates reported in studies from the United States (US), Europe and Australia. Yet, even with these low overall rates, troubling patterns are emerging, particularly among our youths. In 2024, 54% of new drug abusers were under 30, and the number of those under 20 rose by 38%. This rise should not be treated as merely a law enforcement issue; it is a complex social challenge affecting individuals, families and entire communities. These trends are undeniably driven by curiosity and peer pressure, but there are also deeper structural and psychological factors that contribute to its increase. Behind every statistic is a person grappling with trauma and a family striving to rebuild. Enforcement alone cannot break the cycle of addiction. Building on existing efforts, we should continue to foster a sustained and rehabilitative approach, one that centres on a community-anchored ecosystem supporting recovery beyond surveillance.”
“Parliamentary records from March 2024 reveal that on average, only 46% of requests from single unwed parents to rent a public rental flat have been successful each year. This means that every other single parent – usually young, stressed and limited in options – is denied by the public system, while at their most vulnerable. Second, individuals who are unable to stay with their family members. HDB has cited availability of housing from family members as grounds for rejecting public rental requests, with a lack of clarity on whether other factors are considered, such as the nature of the relationship with family, particularly where it may be strained or abusive. Mr Speaker, there are multitudes of reasons why someone might find themselves in desperate situations – relationship breakdowns, overcrowding, divorces and other circumstances often beyond their control. These should not be treated by our public housing system as personal insufficiency. Instead, we must build a system that empowers individuals and families with equal opportunities for safety, stability and self-sufficiency through basic stable housing. Increasing supply of rental flats and reassessing barriers to entry will be key tasks I aim to speak up about in this term. My proposals include: first, exercising flexibility by always taking applicants' current relationship dynamics with family into consideration before rejecting applications based on availability of housing options with family, and publicly commit to upholding this approach. Second, expanding the public rental housing market to cater to changing aspirations of Singaporeans.”
“However, we should be concerned that home ownership has become out of reach, especially for lower-income individuals and families who are unable to afford a place of their own. Many such individuals and families live precariously, in fear of slipping into a situation where they are forced to sell their homes and resort to Government rental flats. But in recent years, even securing Government rental flats can be a challenge. While we recognise that the Housing and Development Board (HDB) has broadened their criteria for rental flats and do not rely solely on income as the main yardstick, demand often outstrips supply. Even successful applicants endure an average waiting period of five months. Renting from the open market also poses its own challenges. Parliamentary records from 2024 show that the average rent for HDB 3-room, 4-room and 5-room flats in the open market has increased significantly by about 10% year-on-year in 2023, for example, the median rent of 3-room flats in Sengkang increased by 11% in the fourth quarter of 2023 compared to the same period in 2022. As a result, such individuals and families find themselves torn between increasing rental prices in the open market and long waiting times for public rental flats, additional stressors on top of the absence of stable housing. I acknowledge that the Government has continuously worked to improve housing access for Singaporeans, including recent pilot projects, such as Single Room Shared Facilities and Joint Singles Scheme Operator-Run. However, more needs to be done to address particular groups disproportionately affected by insufficient housing supply. I will briefly touch on two groups in my speech today. First, single unwed parents and their children.”
“Mr Speaker, I am here today with deep appreciation to the voters of Sengkang. I am honoured to have served in Sengkang as a volunteer since 2020 and now, as their elected representative. I acknowledge the President's call in his address: "Singapore must also remain a home where the vulnerable amongst us are not only cared for with compassion but also empowered to pursue their hopes and dreams." These words remind us of our fundamental duty to ensure that every Singaporean has the opportunity to thrive. This year, Singapore celebrates our 60th year of independence. This milestone presents us with a crucial opportunity for reflection and stocktaking. It is a time to assess not only our achievements but also to honestly examine what we can do better. Most importantly, it compels us to address the emerging cracks in our foundation that threaten to leave some of our fellow Singaporeans behind. Today, I will focus on three areas where we must extend our support: first, extending support in housing through reassessing barriers to entry; second, extending support in rehabilitation beyond punishment and enforcement; and third, extending support in education through more data sharing. While I will confine my comments to these areas for now, I look forward to raising other important issues over the course of this term, in particular, the struggles of the sandwiched generation – young parents juggling work, childcare and rising costs of living. Mr Speaker, stable housing offers a safe harbour where individuals and families can rest and recharge. During Singapore's nation-building period in the 1960s, home ownership was prioritised as a tool for nation-building, allowing Singaporeans to have a stake in our country's development. This vision continues today.”
“Thank you, Speaker, and the Minister of State for the response. For the low uptake, is it due to the cost or location or even caregiver's trust? Because as the Minister of State mentioned, there is only 50 as of a three-year period. Also, how is ECDA addressing these barriers? I have another supplementary which is, will the Ministry consider extending the pilot period or adjusting the model based on early learnings?”