David Hoe
Singapore
“I then kind of figure out that Curiosity Credits, because it cuts through many different life stages – preschool, primary school, secondary school and beyond – I must admit, it was not too obvious where does this nicely sit under? Is it under the Ministry of Social and Family Development? Is it under the Prime Minister's Office?”
“As in many views of this nature, the real test is whether the residents will feel the difference if BCA were to take on estate upgrading in our private estate – when our private residential estate residents should feel that their daily mobility, safety and comfort have improved.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Minister of State for his response. I am heartened to hear the take-up rate. In fact, it is a very good take-up rate. This is also what I observed in my house visits with residents. Against this backdrop, I have two supplementary questions.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Minister for his response. I have two specific supplementary questions. Firstly, I would like to clarify whether MOM is looking at strengthening support for caregivers, specifically dealing with possible bias that employers might have for those who take a career break.”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker, I thank the Minister for the comprehensive response. My question comes from concerns from parents. Three supplementary questions specifically. First, on disciplinary action: what guidance is given to school in deciding when it should be in school suspension and when it should be out-of-school suspension?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions on social mixing as a leveller. Could the Ministry share how it is actively strengthening social mixing across different SES within and across schools, and whether do we track the effectiveness of it? That is my first question.”
The complete record
Every one of 132 lines we hold for David Hoe, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 3.
“The student may or will struggle to obtain the grades needed for university and may emerge out with fewer options than expected. This same applies to all pathways. The issue is not whether junior college, polytechnic or ITE is better. The issue is fit. This is why exposure matters before the choice is made. We often tell our youths that you must be able to define success for yourself. But in order to be able to define success for ourselves, we must first have some self-level of awareness. They must know what excites them, what challenges them, what kind of things they are willing to work hard for and what kind of environments will help them to grow. Self-awareness does not magically happen at the age of 16. It has to be built through exposure, reflection and experience. Mr Speaker, to conclude, we certainly cannot determine every outcome of young Singaporeans. But I believe we can do more to ensure that every young Singaporean has relevant information, meaningful exposure and a fair chance to make better decisions. I want to build a Singapore where our youths are able to articulate their aspirations not because someone told them what to choose, but because they have discovered something about themselves in their own journey. If we truly believe in many different definitions of success, then we must allow our students to have the chance to see enough paths, enough possibilities and choose the next step with confidence.”
“Third, at the course level, the tasters can be shorter and lower-barrier, perhaps three to four hours for each. Because the current one today, is a multi-day module. While they have value, but shorter tasters will allow students to have a sample of more fields before narrowing down a choice. The goal is exposure and it is to spark. Fourth, at the system level, such exposure should build into protected curriculum time. Because if curiosity matters, we must create space for it. At the core, if we agree that every child learns differently, then the broad spectrum of intervention must be able to reflect that. At the heart of it, it is just like Curiosity Credits 1.0. This is fundamentally about helping each child to discover his or her interests. Oftentimes, our ability to discover our interests depends on our access to opportunities. As we progress as a country, opportunity inequality exists. But we should acknowledge this gap and ensure that our systems and structures seek to reduce it. Sir, on this note, I also want to make a related appeal. We should be careful when advising 16-year-olds who are uncertain about their post-secondary pathways. Sometimes, well-meaning adults will tell students who do not know what to study and the easy advice is – just go to junior college first. For some of these students, this might work. If they are academically strong or if they prefer a more academic curriculum or want more time before specialising, junior college could be a good option. But it is not good advice for everyone. Even if a student qualifies to enrol into a junior college, but the student is not suited to that learning style, pushing him or her into junior college may simply put him or her at a very wrong end of a very competitive environment.”
“" This, in my view, is a better ECG classroom conversation. Sir, this pilot must be designed with safeguards. Let me explain. First, it should not be cash. It should be credits and entitlement used for approved programmes. Second, it should be curated, not an open marketplace. The first set of providers could be from our ITE, polytechnics, universities or even specialised institutions. Over time, vetted partners can be considered. Third, it should not be used for tuition, exam preparation or academic drilling. The purpose is exposure, not competition. Fourth, it should be easy for schools to administer. The Ministry can build upon the existing applied learning modules infrastructure. Fifth, it must be evaluated properly. The question is not whether every taster leads to a course application. Rather, the question should be – through every taster, does the student become clearer, more confident and more informed about their choices? With the mechanism done, allow me to also say this: MOE already has something close to this. From my research, it is what we called applied learning modules. I see that as a strength to build upon, not as a reason to stop. What I have proposed and what I am proposing? Four differences. First, at the student level, every child would have a visible Curiosity Credits wallet from Secondary 1, not Secondary 2. Why is a personalised wallet important? Because a personalised wallet signals ownership. It tells the student – you have the permission to explore, and you have the choices to make. Second, at the choice level, the tasters should cover a broad spread of clusters, like I mentioned earlier, health and care, engineering and the built environment, and the list goes on.”
“It should designed for secondary school students so that they can understand. One practical model is to expose them by broad cluster rather than an overwhelming list of courses. So, for example, this cluster could be health and care, engineering and the built environment, digital and cybersecurity, hospitality and tourism and the list goes on. So, how does a taster look like? A taster in engineering could show students not just the final exciting end-product, but to also show them the kind of mathematics, systems thinking and problem-solving required. What does a taster in nursing look like? It could help them to understand the basics of patient care, empathy, clinical discipline and the realities of healthcare work. What does a taster in cybersecurity look like? It could involve a simple hands-on challenge to show them what the field actually demands. Exposure helps students to make more informed decisions. Course design aside, let us move on to the mechanism. The mechanism and how it drives this exposure should be simple. First, as mentioned, each student will receive a certain number of credits to be able to purchase approved taster modules. The taster modules could be offered during maybe the last week of the school term or during protected exposure periods. By going for the taster lessons, it gives our teachers and our ECG counsellors something richer to discuss with the students. This can be linked to our ECG lessons because before the student goes for our taster lesson, the teacher can ask, "What course do you think you want to do?” After they have attended, instead of asking "What did you hope to do?", the question becomes, "What have you tried? What did you enjoy? What did you struggle with? What surprised you? What made you want to learn more?”
“With this particular wallet, they can purchase curated taster sessions to have a flavour of what this course is like. These taster sessions are designed by ITEs, polytechnics, universities or specialised institutions, and schools can bring these tasters into the school and into the classrooms during selected weeks and also allow students to attend them at these institutions during protected exposure periods. The aim here is not to create an open-ended voucher scheme. The aim is to provide structured exposure. This is why, in Figure 2, Curiosity Credits 2.0 is not just a passive wallet, it is a school-guided cycle. First, students receive their annual Curiosity Credits. Then, they enrol into one of these courses with guidance from their ECG counsellors or teachers. Now, they experience a short and age-appropriate module. After that, they reflect on what they have learnt and then, use that, record it down, and decide on what the post-secondary choices will look like. Follow me to Figure 3, because Figure 3 will show Members what it does look like across the secondary school years. The target is modest but meaningful – not to expose every student to every possible course, but if by Secondary 4, they can have about six to eight structured taster experiences in different clusters, this might help them to make a better decision. If we do this right, we can help students to enrol into courses with a clearer fit alignment and reduce the risk of course mismatch, disengagement and later pathway regret. More importantly, it is to reduce the possibility of underemployment. Now that Members understand the broad strokes, let me bring Members through the details of how this work. What I am proposing is that these taster lessons, it should be age-appropriate.”
“However, from the student's perspective, the exposure journey may still be uneven. Some of this support I mentioned earlier, they are information-rich but lack hands-on. What do I mean? They can read about courses, but that is different from being able to try them. Some guidance is personalised, but not experiential. Because our ECG counsellors can guide a student through, but it will be even better if they can reflect on something that is more concrete in their experience. Some students may get internships or job shadowing or informal exposure before making such choices. These opportunities, they are more personalised and more hands-on, however, it is not equally available to all students. So, in simple terms, students can benefit from personalised information, guidance and hands-on exposure. Today, we have all three pieces. But what I am asking is can we connect them more deliberately so that every student, especially those who come from less-resourced families, has a fair chance to taste and try before making a major post-secondary school decision. Some may ask me, David, does it really matter? It does if we fundamentally believe that every child learns differently. If we believe that some students learn better with hands-on experience, then it matters, because these hands-on experiences are not a nice-to-have. It helps them to make sense of their options. So, Mr Speaker, I would, therefore, like to ask whether MOE can study and pilot a more structured way to help students who learn best through experience. For now, let me call this Curiosity Credit 2.0. The idea is simple. From Secondary 1 onwards, students would have this thing that I call a Curiosity Credits wallet.”
“His nephew realised that he really does not enjoy the nature of accounting even though he does well at principles of accounts and he decided that accountancy was not something he wanted to pursue. So, when his uncle asked him this year, "Nephew, what did you then decide?" The nephew replied, "I chose maritime business." His uncle was perturbed. He asked, "Why?" The nephew said, "My good friend chose maritime business. Hence, I am going there." His uncle later realised that his good friend's family business was in the maritime sector so that choice made sense for his friend. But it did not necessarily make sense for his nephew. This example shows two things. Some of our young people have networks that can create opportunities for them to gain better clarity. Second, not every 16-year-old would have this uncle, mentor or family contact who can help them to think through their choices. At the heart of this Motion, it is a simple point. We can do better to help our youths to make better decisions through better exposure. Mr Speaker, I want to make it clear that MOE is not starting from zero. In fact, Singapore has built a fairly extensive ecosystem that helps students think about their future. Students today have access to the MySkillsFuture portal and CourseFinder to explore education and career pathways. We have the Education and Career Guidance (ECG) curriculum in schools. Students can consult their teachers and ECG counsellors. There are open houses by our polytechnics and Institutes of Technical Education (ITEs). And our schools offer co-curricular activities (CCAs), Learning for Life experiences and, in some cases, internships, externships, job shadowing for some of our integrated programme schools. All these are important points.”
“5 of Grade Point Average (GPA) out of 4.0. At this point, he wants to switch out, switch to another course or progress to the next level, but with a GPA of 2.0 or 2.5, he may find that his options are narrowed. A higher Nitec student want to move to polytechnic, but his grades might not qualify because his GPA is not strong enough. Even if his GPA was decent, he is not able to switch course that easily because of the earlier course that he has chosen. Likewise, a polytechnic student who entered engineering, but later discovered that he wants to do another field, may find that his grades and course background do not support the switch. By then, it feels too late. Over time, this then contributes to underemployment or mismatch between what he or she studies, and what he or she eventually does at work. At the core, the real issue is really about whether the student had never had enough exposure to choose well in the first place. Now follow me. Let us take a step back. How does a 16-year-old decide? In my interactions with youths, I have asked them and they say, some tell me: "I chose this, because my friend chose this", "I chose this course because my grades could qualify for this", "I chose this because I was told that this was a safe course". And a recent conversation reflects this harsh reality. I spoke with someone who is a chief executive officer of a private equity and venture capital investment firm. He shared with me how his 16-year-old nephew this year made his polytechnic course selection. His nephew was good at principles of accounts. Therefore, at 15 years old, his very loving uncle decided to help him find an internship at an accountancy firm.”
“One participant expressed interest in art. Within a few months, that spark fanned into flame and she produced a drawing reflected in Figure 1, to express thanks to the donor. Others have tried a course and decided not to continue. That, too, is useful, because discovery is not just about finding what one likes. It is also about finding what is not a good fit. So, to me, Curiosity Credits 1.0 is still about a simple principle – give children the opportunities to discover and ignite a spark. But today, I want to build on this idea and focus on Curiosity Credits 2.0 – helping secondary school students to make more informed post-secondary school choices. Mr Speaker, we make many decisions every single day. Some are small. Some are routine. But some decisions shape the directions of our lives. For many of our young Singaporeans, one of this decisions comes very early, that is at the age of 16. After they are done with "N" levels or "O" levels, our youths than have to decide: "Do I go to polytechnic? Do I go to ITE? Or do I go to junior college? Or a specialised institution? then what course should I then take?" If they choose a pathway that is a poor fit, their consequences can be serious. Let me explain, and I have seen this countless number of times. A student enrols into an engineering course without realising how much mathematics or technical thinking it requires. The student does not lack the ability. But he simply have chosen a pathway that does not match his strengths, interests or learning style. What then happens is this – he enrols into the course; he struggles; he loses motivation; his grades suffer. Perhaps he can still graduate from the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) or polytechnic, with mediocre results, about 2.0 or 2.”
“I then kind of figure out that Curiosity Credits, because it cuts through many different life stages – preschool, primary school, secondary school and beyond – I must admit, it was not too obvious where does this nicely sit under? Is it under the Ministry of Social and Family Development? Is it under the Prime Minister's Office? Is it under MOE, or is it a combination of agencies? Well, at the same time, I am also happy to report that since my maiden speech, I have seen ground-up pilots suggest that this idea has promise. One of these examples is through the support from a donor, funded through Ray of Hope and carried out by Empowering Families Initiative, for children from lower-income families where they are able to purchase opportunities to try out programmes that they otherwise would not have accessed. With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I ask the clerk to distribute the accompanying slides through the MP@SG PARL app?”
“Mr Speaker, after many rounds of balloting, I am grateful for this opportunity to be able to share about this topic. Before I start, I would like to record my appreciation to the participants of Curiosity Credits Dialogue, organised by South-West Young People's Action Party, at the same time, my Clementi residents during my Clementi community run and also my Meet-the-People Session volunteers. They have helped to refine this idea that I am about to share today. In my maiden speech, I shared with this House about the idea of Curiosity Credits. It is a means-tested way for children to draw upon so that they can discover their interests beyond academic pursuit: things like songwriting, sports, robotics and the list goes on. This is important, because if we want to have our own definition of success, the first step, it is really a function of knowing our interest and what our strengths are like. Since then, I have moved this idea beyond a slogan. I have filed Parliamentary Questions asking whether our Child Development Account (CDA) can be expanded to support enrichment and exposure beyond preschool settings. However, the response I have gotten is that it is not advisable to open up our CDA funds for enrichment programmes that are outside of preschool. Well, I also then ask the Ministry of Education (MOE), whether could we have an age-appropriate SkillsFuture-like scheme for students from lower-income households to access subsidised out-of-school opportunities, with proper guardrails. The response has been useful. They made it clear that we already have many schemes supporting children and students from disadvantaged background. So, here is my challenge.”
“As in many views of this nature, the real test is whether the residents will feel the difference if BCA were to take on estate upgrading in our private estate – when our private residential estate residents should feel that their daily mobility, safety and comfort have improved. If URA is coordinating infrastructure planning, seniors should feel that agencies are working together to solve real access issues on the ground. If professional pathways are made more flexible, young people should feel that their experience is recognised while the public must remain assured that standards are not diluted. If hybrid plants are brought in within the regulatory framework, the ordinary consumer should be educated clearly so that compliance is practical and not confusing. And where past fees and charges are validated, the public should receive clear explanations, so trust is preserved.”
“So, I would like to ask the Government – how will the Government ensure that ordinary individuals do not unknowingly break the law? Will there be public education efforts explaining what kind of plants are affected? Will there be simple consumer-facing guidance with pictures or examples? More broadly, could the Ministry clarify where the responsibility would lie in common scenarios when a consumer buys plant from an online overseas store or a local retailer sells plant without clearly indicating whether it might be a regulated hybrid? I raise this because strong regulation should go in hand with strong awareness. I just like to make a brief point on the validation of past fees and charges. The views validate various fees and charges previously collected by agencies as BCA, HDB, NParks and URA. In plain English, this means that Parliament is asked to confirm that certain sums collected in the past are to be treated properly and legally collected. I understand that from time to time legislation that may need to regularise technical gaps or clarify legal basis for administrative practice. But whenever Parliament is asked to validate past collections, it will be helpful for the Government to number one, explain clearly what happened; number two, whether any members of the public were materially affected? While I have trust in the integrity of our public servants to do good by Singaporeans, public trust must continue to be sustained and strengthened when such matters are explained clearly and candidly. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me conclude by saying that I support the Bill.”
“However, the built environment is also one where public safety is directly at stake. Let me explain. Because architects and professional engineers make decisions that will affect building infrastructure and safety of our public. So, while we make pathways more flexible, we must be careful that we do not dilute standards. Will the qualifying assessment remain robust enough to assure the public that the flexibility in pathways does not mean dilution in professional standards? In my view, the right balance should be this: do not make pathways are unnecessarily long or rigid but also do not make flexibility to become ambiguous. If pathways are shortened, then public assurance must be strengthened. My fifth point concerns the inclusion of hybrid plants under endangered species framework. I understand the intent. If hybrid plants derived from scheduled species are not covered, then there might be loopholes that could be exploited in illegal wildlife and plants trade, and Singapore has a role to play in preventing such trade and supporting conservation. I support this intent. But I would also like to point out from a practical point of view, from an ordinary consumer, especially those who buy plants online. Many might not exactly know what a hybrid plant is. I will be honest to confess to everyone while preparing for this Bill, I also do not understand what exactly a hybrid plant is and I had to Google, "Oh, so this is how a hybrid plant looks like." So, what am I trying to say here? Many consumers who are just buying plants, they really might not know what constitute a hybrid plant. So, they may not know its origin, whether it is derived from a regulated species.”
“I appreciate the agencies, such as LTA will continue to lead many of these efforts, but I hope the Minister can clarify how URA's enhanced role will improve coordination and responsiveness to the ground. If URA's role is to coordinate the planning of transport, utilities and other infrastructures, then I hope the coordination will be felt not just in master plans or major development, but also in the small practical improvements that affect daily lives. Because sometimes the most meaningful infrastructure improvement is not the most dramatic one. It is the one that allows elderly residents to be able to make their journey independently, safely with dignity. My fourth point concerns recognising pre-qualification of practical experience for architects and professional engineers. Let me just make this clear. I support this move. For young people, entering the built environment, the path to professional registration can be a long and demanding one. It is not that after you graduate with an engineering degree, you immediately become a professional engineer. That is not true, because it is a long and demanding one today. Practical experience matter, because their practical experience helped to shape judgement, confidence and professional competency. If a person has acquired relevant experience before formal qualification, then it is sensible whether this experience should be counted. This is especially important because if we want to attract and retain talent in the built environment sector because many young people want meaningful careers, but they also look at how long the pathway takes and whether the system recognises the work they have already done. So, in principle, I actually support this view and this direction.”
“This, in my view, is an important amendment. So, allow me to now return back to the issue of mobility, especially for our seniors. In my constituency, residents have shared their concerns about overhead bridges not having lifts. At Faber Hills estate, many residents have been asking for years whether we could build a lift in the overhead bridge linking from Faber Drive to NEWest Park because, honestly, they will prefer just to walk across the bridge to have their breakfast there. Furthermore, residents have also requested for a lift for the overhead bridge at Block 343 Clementi for more than 10 years. Mr Speaker, Sir, it pains every single time when I go on house visits, residents say the same thing. They say, "David, every time I take a bus, and I stop in front of Block 343 there is a flight of stairs, we just stand there and wait for someone to come and help us to carry our groceries up." These lifts matter to the seniors because they have to climb up a flight of stairs. Hence, if we are able to build lifts on overhead bridge, this matters to our seniors. My main point here is this – whether seniors living in private estate or public estate, the need for better infrastructure to support mobility matters to our seniors. This is especially true, as I said, for elderly seniors, residents with mobility issues, parents with prams or caregivers accompanying someone frail. An overhead bridge, without lift access, can be a real obstacle, especially in our mature estate. So, when URA takes a clearer coordinating role in transport and infrastructure planning, will this help agencies, including LTA, where relevant, identify, prioritise such accessibility gaps more systematically, including overhead bridges without lifts?”
“For another, it is better lighting at night. For an elderly resident, it is about being able to safely walk from the home to the bus stop. For those on wheelchair and walking aid, it is whether the pavements are even and whether they are safe enough for crossing. So, I hope the Ministry would be able to share what indicators are we looking at to assess quality of life impact and such upgrading works. In other words, the question should not be, "Did we build something?" but it should be "Did we make life meaningfully better for our residents as a result of all these things that we are building?" My second point concerns about the Bill's provision of BCA to provide administrative support services to bodies of the professional engineer board and strata title board. Could the Ministry also clarify what does this entail in practice? For example, does this refer to secretarial support, shared services, case administration, IT system service or operational functions? This will help us to better understand how this amendment improves efficiency while preserving substantive independence and professional judgement of these bodies. Administrative support can sound mundane, but it shapes how efficiently and responsively public facing bodies will operate. If a professional board or tribunal has a good administrative support, applications can be processed faster, correspondence may be clearer and members of public may receive more timely response. At the same time, administrative support should also strengthen efficiency without blurring the roles of relevant boards. So, I appreciate clarification on how BCA support will be structured. Third, I would like to talk about URA's expanded role in coordinating transport utilities and other infrastructure planning.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to speak in support of the Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendment) Bill. I am not going to speak on every part of the Bill, but instead, I wish to focus on five specific areas where the amendments directly affect residents' lived experience, professional pathways and public understanding. My first point, it is about the expanded role of BCA in private residential estates. This Bill allows BCA to act as an agent of a government in managing, implementing and administering programme for upgrading of public spaces, infrastructure and facilities in private residential estates. The stated aim is to improve the quality of life of residents in those estates. I welcome this move. Very often when we talk about estate upgrading, our mind turns to HDB estates. And this is understandable because HDB houses about 80% of our resident population. But ageing in place, mobility and safety, are not only issues faced by people who live in HDB but also many seniors who live in private estates too. When I visit Faber Hills Estate in my constituency, I meet sizeable number of seniors there. And this Bill matters to them because it affects their daily living. This senior shared with me that even as they age, they no longer want to drive. They want to walk. They want to take public transport. They want to rely just on their legs. Therefore, I welcome this Bill, the role that BCA plays in private estates to improve quality of lives. However, I would like to ask the Minister if we could clarify what does quality of life? How is it defined in this case, and how do we measure? Because this phrase sounds simple, but it really can mean different things to different people. For one resident, quality of life could mean nicer landscaping.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Minister of State for his response. I am heartened to hear the take-up rate. In fact, it is a very good take-up rate. This is also what I observed in my house visits with residents. Against this backdrop, I have two supplementary questions. First, does the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) have an initial sensing of the reasons for the 17% that have not started utilising the CLC? My second question is, through my house visits, would MSF also consider expanding the CLC to children beyond 12? This is because parents often tell me that older children, like their teenagers, are at the phase of their life that they happen to eat more and this would also help to manage the household expenses and child-raising costs.”
“In this principle, this should lead to more choices, better services, fairer access and greater innovation. But from the perspective of the ordinary resident, the issue is not really how many media companies exist. The issue is whether the media environment, whether what they experience is diverse, reliable, accessible and trustworthy. A person may have access to many sources but still see a narrow slice of content. A young person may consume a lot of media but encounter very little local content. So, when we assess whether market-level competition has improved, I hope IMDA would also consider whether residents actually experience more choice, better service quality and greater discoverability of local content. I would like to ask IMDA how would we assess whether this Bill is delivering better outcomes for the consumer? Mr Speaker, let me conclude. I support this Bill. It is right that our regulatory framework keeps pace with the changes in the media landscape. But as we do so, we must uphold three balances carefully: first, preventing dominance and allowing new firms to enter; second, regulatory strength and investability; third, market competition and consumer trust. Getting this right would help us to be a more open, vibrant, trusted and future-ready media ecosystem for Singapore. 8.55 pm”
“It allows IMDA to issue directions in relations to regulated person and essential resources. It provides a stronger intervention where competition or the public interest is at stake. These are meaningful powers. But precisely because such powers are significant, the basis for exercising them should be clear. So, I would like to ask how the Government intends to provide clarity on key concepts, such as public interest, effective control, substantial leasing of competition and essential resources? Will IMDA also publish clear decision frameworks or guidelines on how these concepts will be applied? Will businesses and investors be given sufficient clarity on the types of transactions or conduct that may raise such concerns? This is important because investors are not just asking whether this system is fair. They are also asking whether this system is predictable. A system can be interventionistic, if needed or when needed, but if the basis for intervention is not well understood, investors may hesitate. I also note that the Bill provides for reconsideration request to IMDA and appeals to the Minister. This is important. But could the Minister also clarify how does this safeguard works in practice? My point is simple. Strong regulatory power should match with strong clarity. This is how we preserve Singapore's reputation as a place where markets are well-governed, trusted and investable. My final point is on outcomes for consumers and our residents. The Bill seeks to promote competition in the media industry. More precisely, it seeks to prevent unfair dominance, regulate control and ensure important media resources are not used in ways that harm competition or the public interest.”
“It should also preserve innovation, entry and space for new players to grow. In plain English, we should not protect competition in a way which makes it harder for future competitors to emerge. My second point is on Singapore's relevance and investability. Singapore's strength has always been not just only stable, but we are clear, predictable and trusted. And these are important reasons why investors choose to invest here. And investability is not an abstract concept because when companies invest in Singapore, they bring capital, they bring capabilities, regional functions and jobs. They create opportunities not just for senior executives but also Singaporeans working in content, marketing, production, communication and many other roles. You see, investors and business do not expect a market to be unregulated. In fact, good regulations can strengthen confidence. It tells serious players the following things: one, the rules here in Singapore are fair; two, that dominant players cannot abuse their position; and three, that the system will not allow unfair concentration of control. In this regard, this Bill sends a positive signal. It shows that Singapore is committed to fair and well-governed markets in the media industry. I understand, for example, the Bill closes a gap that says that if any party, including a non-media company, seeks to acquire 30% or more of equity interest or voting power in a regulated person, IMDA would have oversight. This is sensible because media ownership is not just commercial matters, because it affects competition, consumer interest and public trust. See, at the same time, the powers introduced in this Bill are significant. The Bill strengthens control over ownership and effective control.”
“But if Singaporeans were to upskill, they must also feel that the real opportunities exist at the end of their effort. So, the question is not really about whether this Bill prevents excessive concentration of control, but the question is whether preventing such concentration of control can translate into a more vibrant ecosystem where more players can enter, grow and hire. With this Bill, I hope to be able to say to every Singaporean, if you choose to build your skills in this sector, Singapore is working to keep the media and ecosystem open, contestable and future-ready. However, there is a tension that we must manage carefully. This Bill introduces strong controls over ownership, voting power, acquisition, effective control and the use and sharing of essential resources. These powers may be necessary to prevent dominance and protect public interest, but if applied without sufficient proportionality, they may create uncertainty for legitimate growth or even fundraising. This is particularly relevant for smaller players or emerging media businesses that may grow in the regulated space over time. Will the unintended consequences then be that new and small players find it harder to enter or scale? So, my question to IMDA is this: how will we ensure that a framework designed to prevent unfair dominance does not unintentionally reduce vibrancy and entry that competition depends on? Where smaller players or emerging players fall in the regulated space, will IMDA also adopt a proportionate approach to compliance? Will there be clear guidelines for simple processes or differentiated expectation between large incumbents and smaller entrants? I raise this because competition regulation should not prevent unfair dominance alone.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am speaking in support of the IMDA (Amendment) Bill. While this Bill might appear technical, it matters because media is not just another industry. It shapes what people see. It shapes what they know. It shapes who they trust and also how we understand one another as a society. I do not intend to speak on every single clause in this Bill but I wish to focus on three specific areas: first, whether preventing excessive concentration of control will also help to facilitate new entrance and create jobs; second, whether the new powers will be exercised with sufficient clarity and predictability, so that Singapore remains trusted and investable; and third, whether fairer market conditions will translate to better outcomes for consumers. My first point is on aspirations and employment. A media ecosystem that is open and contestable should, in principle, create more opportunities. But this Bill does not directly create those opportunities. Rather, it seeks to prevent a market structure where opportunities become too concentrated in the hands of a few dominant players. This is important because when the market becomes too concentrated, smaller firms might find it harder to enter, new ideas may struggle to find distribution and our young workers might find fewer employers to choose from. Workers would then have fewer pathways into the industry. For our young and our workers, this matters because the media content and ecosystem industry today brings work, such as production and design data, advertising technology, communication and platform-facing businesses. This is especially important given our current job climate. We encourage Singaporeans to upskill, sign up for SkillsFuture, stay relevant to industrial needs.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Minister for his response. I have three clusters of supplementary questions. The first is, a recent The Straits Times article reported that a Primary 5 student was asked by the teacher to use ChatGPT for his homework. I would like to clarify whether teachers can ask primary school students to use publicly available AI tools to assist them in their homework? And if so also, could MOE also share what is an appropriate age where students are then able to use publicly available AI tools to assist them in their learning? My second question is, since platforms, such as Open AI and ChatGPT requires users below 18 years old to obtain parental consent, does MOE then also expect teachers to reach out to parents to get their consent to use such tools in classroom for their learning? If so, what support will be given to teachers, because sometimes chasing parents to submit a form is significantly harder than getting the students to submit homework? Lastly, during a recent People's Action Party Women's Union Listening Pod event, a parent asked whether parents could have the opportunity to try MOE's AI learning tools themselves, because this will help them to better experience the guardrails and also understand how to support their child in their learning. Hence, I would like to ask whether would MOE be open to having such engagement, to let parents try how these MOE AI learning tools? If so, would MOE also be willing to do one in Clementi and I will be more than happy to run the parent engagement for parents living in Clementi.”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker, I thank the Minister for the comprehensive response. My question comes from concerns from parents. Three supplementary questions specifically. First, on disciplinary action: what guidance is given to school in deciding when it should be in school suspension and when it should be out-of-school suspension? The second question for out-of-school suspension, how does the Ministry ensure that there will be avenues for guided reflection during the time of out-of-school suspension, so that this would be able to achieve the objective, which is supposed to be educative in nature? Lastly, given that students may fear retaliation or social repercussion, what measures are there to protect students and assurance given to them that they will be protected after making a report?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Minister for his response. I have two specific supplementary questions. Firstly, I would like to clarify whether MOM is looking at strengthening support for caregivers, specifically dealing with possible bias that employers might have for those who take a career break. I also just want to highlight this to the Minister, that stepping out for caregiving should not mean stepping down permanently. I hope the Minister can give assurance to caregivers that they will be able to assume back to their previous role, because many of these caregivers are parents with young children. Secondly, let me address the concerns of our youths. How would MOM also assure youths that might not have many internships or less connected backgrounds, that they will not be significantly disadvantaged in a labour market that increasingly rewards early internship networks and overseas exposure, as reflected in The Straits Times article this morning?”
“I thank the Minister of State for the response. I am specifically heartened to hear that we will explore a possible veterinary local degree. I would like to clarify if MND will be working with MOE to explore the possibility of an ITE pathway in the veterinary sector. Specifically, could we consider a Higher Nitec course that could then feed into the polytechnic diploma-related course?”
“If we get this right, then I will be also able to say to a young Singaporean that if your dream, your aspiration is to be an animal doctor, there are clear pathways and structures for you to get there; and for you to achieve this aspiration, it is never a function of your family's income.”
“This is reassuring, especially because the Bill itself says that for unauthorised practice and related misconduct also carry significant penalties of a $50,000 fine and/or up to 12 months of imprisonment. However, I would like to clarify how the MND arrived at this, and what benchmark were they using to determine this? At the end of the day, we want to be able to ensure that the cost of committing a crime is high enough that it will deter others from doing it. More broadly, I would also like to understand how the appeals framework will operate in practice. For example, if a certain appeal is routed to the Minister, or where decisions are made across different stages that involves the same bodies, there may be questions about how independent and clearly separated the processes are perceived to be. In a professional regulatory system, it is not only just actual fairness that matters, but is also perceived neutrality. So, it would be helpful if the Ministry could clarify how the framework has been designed to ensure that confidence can be maintained on both fronts. Mr Deputy Speaker, in closing, this Bill plays an important step in building a stronger and a more credible veterinary profession in Singapore. It gives pet owners greater assurance, gives the profession clearer legal footing and gives the public stronger grounds on what standards to expect. But the job does not end with regulation alone. We should also make pathways into this profession more accessible, make standards clearer for the public and build a system done well in preventing potential harm to our pets and our animals.”
“For pet owners and animal lovers, this clarity of this area is important because the Council is expected to also provide more details at a later point, clear public communication on what this restricted registration allows or does not allow to do matters, because it gives pet owners that level of security to know who is giving their pet care and what can they do. I also support the composition of the Veterinary Council, which include experienced veterinarians and laypersons. However, I would like to have a little bit more elaboration on what exactly are the expertise are we looking at for the layperson? What are they expected to bring to the table? What are the broad considerations that will guide their selection? I would also appreciate some clarification on the requirement to have at least a fully registered vet on the Council, because it says that it must have at least 10 years of experience as a vet. Does this mean continuous practice or cumulative practice over time? And what reference point does experience starts counting from? Why do I ask? Because some vets or some animal doctors might take a career break at some point and return. The moment that they return and when they have first started, do we look at these years as part of the 10 years of experience as a vet? On disciplinary matters, I welcome the Bill because it provides a more developed framework for complaints assessment, disciplinary committees, interim orders, investigation, appeals and penalties. NParks has said that this framework has developed with reference from professional regimes in healthcare and the built environment, as well as overseas veterinary statutory boards.”
“In this regard, Temasek Polytechnic already offers a diploma in veterinary technology and Singapore Food Agency's sector career page lists that this particular diploma, it is a full-time pathway into a broader agrifood and animal care space. However, at the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) level, I realise that the publicly visible offering seems to be shorter courses or part-time animal care and grooming programmes, such as basic aquatic animal care, with a course duration of seven hours, and a certificate of competency in dog care and grooming with a duration of 14 hours. As it stands today, I am really not sure whether there are fuller ITE pathways relevant to veterinary or animal care work. It would be helpful for the Ministry to be able to clarify this. If the response is no or not yet, then I hope the Government will consider more structured pathways to be developed over time, especially since NParks have already said in the longer term, the Veterinary Council will also regulate veterinary nurses, which will play an important role in supporting animal care. This matters because a good system allows people with different strengths, academic profiles and financial starting points to contribute meaningfully. Not everyone will become a vet, but many can still play a part in this high-quality animal care ecosystem if we build proper pathways there. My third point concerns public assurance, governance and how this framework will work in practice. I spoke at length about pathways; now let me move to clause 18, which introduces a category known as restricted registration for individuals who may not hold qualification from prescribed universities, but they demonstrate necessary training, knowledge, skills and experience.”
“Against this backdrop, I also wonder whether we should consider a full local DVM programme hosted by one of our autonomous universities, as well as maybe degree partnership, where we have more locally delivered components for our current local foreign veterinary programme offerings, stronger clinical placement arrangement. More broadly, I want to be able to look at every single child in Singapore and say that your aspiration matters. We have the pathways and structures to enable you to realise your aspiration and your aspiration is not a function of your family's income. I recognise that the points that I have raised cut across the purview of several Ministries, MOE, the Ministry of Manpower, and it does not strictly fall under the purview of MND. But in the spirit of a whole-of-Government collaboration and since this Bill established a legal framework that defines who can practise as a vet, then the broader question is, how do we develop pipeline into this profession should also be considered. I kid you not – I hesitated for a while and I asked myself whether should I even raise this, because what I have just raised goes beyond the strict four corners of the Bill. But I chose to do so because I believe Singapore must be a place where passion is made possible and not quietly limited by cost constraints. Second, I hope the Ministry can also focus on developing wider talent pipeline for veterinary and animal care ecosystem broadly. This is because a strong animal care sector does not only run on veterinarians. It also requires veterinary technicians, nurses, animal care workers and other support roles.”
“This could take the form of these few things: a bonded scholarship, bursary, enhanced study grants, structured sponsorship for Singaporeans prepared to serve in the sector after graduation. If deeper institution partnership is explored over time, perhaps the Government and our IHLs can also study what are the ways to moderate cost burden for students on such concurrent programme pathways, so the overseas component does not become a decisive barrier. For example, can they still pay local school fees while studying abroad, because this is quite similar to students when they go overseas for exchange. I note positively there are existing schemes. Let me share some. NParks' Study Grants Programme supports Singapore Citizens pursuing a full-time veterinary programme in an accredited overseas university, and also NParks-Peter Lim Scholarship explicitly supports less privileged youths pursuing careers in the veterinary and animal science sector. This, in my view, are good moves. But my question is, are they enough, relative to the cost and the length of the pathways and whether there could be more upstream support needed so that talent is not simply lost because this route is too expensive. NParks itself has said that pet ownership is on the rise and Singapore's veterinary sector is expanding to meet this growing demand for high quality animal care. At the same time, Singaporeans' households are keeping pets. Expectation of care have also risen. In fact, I also do know of a number of Clementi residents that recently just did a career switch to go into the animal care industry. So, when we talk about building pipeline to this profession, we are not planning for a shrinking sector, because the demand looks to me like it is likely going to continue rising.”
“To be fair, the landscape has improved, because before 2018, the only way that you can pursue the relevant qualification to become a veterinarian, was to do this overseas. Today, the National University of Singapore's (NUS') Life Science's concurrent programme with the University of Melbourne, Doctor of Veterinarian Medicine, or known as DVM, is a pathway to be able to get such qualification. However, it is relatively costly in terms of time, commitment and also finances. First, you need to first spend five regular semesters in NUS, then following a year in Melbourne to read the first year of DVM, continued with three more years as a full-time international student in Melbourne to complete this DVM. The University of Melbourne's international tuition fee for DVM is nearly A$86,000 per year as of 2026. This means a student would typically have to pay $300,000 or more in tuition fees to be able to complete this concurrent degree programme. There are also other hidden costs as well, such as accommodation, transportation and daily necessities. So, while this is a good thing that we have at least a local-linked pathway, the financial barriers are real. I say this not as a criticism of this Bill, because after all, this is not a higher education Bill. But once Parliament puts a stronger statutory framework for this particular profession, then I think it is reasonable that we ask whether we can enhance our talent development strategy in this particular sector. I therefore ask MND, NParks and also MOE, and as well as our institutes of higher learning (IHLs), whether we can study how to be more deliberate to reduce the financial barriers before enrolling into such programmes.”
“They were asking for clearer processes, greater empathy and a stronger confidence that the relevant systems would work well when for the animal welfare's concern. It is against this backdrop, I support the Bill because it entails guardrails for animal welfare by ensuring baseline through having needing prescribed qualifications for veterinarians. However, I have three broad concerns, and I hope the Government can address. First, it is about the accessibility and talent pipeline for the veterinarian profession. When I speak to young people about their aspirations, their responses are highly diverse. Some want to be lawyers, some want to be doctors, some want to be pilots. But there are also some that tell me that I want to be a vet when I grow older, and this is also reflected in my recent Clementi Community Run, where a youth shared with me when she was much younger, she aspired to be an animal doctor then. But this particular aspiration usually comes from something simple. When I ask why, this aspiration is shaped by their lived experience. A visit to the zoo, caring for a pet at home or even just wandering around our neighbourhood shops, looking at the pet shops. You see, it is my belief that in Singapore we must be able to tell every single child that their aspirations can be realised and is not a function of their family income. While I appreciate this Bill providing greater clarity on the qualification and registration framework for those who want to practise as veterinarians in Singapore, I would like to invite you now to join me on a journey to realise what does it take to realise this aspiration.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I am speaking in support of the Veterinary Practice Bill. NParks noted during public consultations that Singapore has over 690 licensed veterinarians in October 2025. This is five and a half times more than the number in 2006. This shows that the sector has grown in size, scope and complexity since then. As pet ownership rises, the range of treatments also expands. Our laws must keep pace and this is exactly what this Bill is trying to do, by ensuring that there is qualified care given. This Bill matters because public concerns about animal welfare and accountability have sharpened over the years, including after high-profile incidents in the wider animal care ecosystem. But beyond individual incidents, I observe a deeper shift that is taking place in this country. As Singapore progresses beyond our first 60 years, our sense of compassion is also broadening. More people do not just only care about themselves and also just human outcomes, but they also care about the welfare of animals around them. And I see this in every single day settings. In Clementi for instance, some residents are deeply committed to caring for community cats' well-being. In October 2025, I organised a convening between Clementi residents, NParks, AVS and Town Councils where views were actively and passionately aired about how animal welfare can be better safeguarded. Their concerns are not abstract. They speak from daily caregiving experience, they want to see these animals live well, cared for and a system that responds more compassionately and effectively. What stood out to me was that the residents were not asking for more rules.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions on social mixing as a leveller. Could the Ministry share how it is actively strengthening social mixing across different SES within and across schools, and whether do we track the effectiveness of it? That is my first question. The second one is, I would like to check if there is a progress update to my previous Parliamentary Question, where I asked whether MOE would consider a tie-breaker mechanism that gives students of lower SES background some priority for schools that are over-subscribed?”
“Second, what type of platforms would likely be covered? Will the framework focus mainly on largely e-commerce operators or could it also extend to peer-to-peer market spaces, like Carousell, where individual users upload listings directly. Third, in the case where a platform holds large volumes of listing, what level of what levels of monitoring and due diligence will be expected of them, and what guidance or support might be provided for them so that they would comply easily? These question matters because the line between platform responsibility, seller's responsibility and practical enforceability can be complex. We should want a regime that is effective, but also clear and proportionate. Mr Deputy Speaker, to conclude, I support this Bill both as a member of the MSE Government Parliamentary Committee and also as a regular consumer, because it strengthens an important part of Singapore's energy efficiency framework. But if we want this framework to work well, we must pay attention to the last mile. We should not only set sound legal rules, but also make compliance straightforward and simple for ordinary users. We should not only raise standards, but we should also make it easy for people to understand and what is expected of them. We should not only regulate for digital age, but also must ensure that implementation is practical for consumers, businesses and platforms alike. If we get this balance right, we will make it easier for people to support Singapore's energy transition.”
“I understand in my observation of various stickers, there are at least 10 sets of information in practice and what consumers first notice are the ticks. Other information might be valuable, for example, annual energy consumption or estimated cost. But I also wonder for those that have very small font size, whether these information are equally important in influencing purchasing decision? So, against this backdrop, I would like to ask the Ministry whether it has reviewed how consumers actually interpret such labelling and perhaps consider a more robust means of understanding what people focus on when they look at the label. So, questions to ask ourselves would be these: what information do they notice? What do they understand? What influence their choice? More broadly, what is the behavioural objective of the label today? Is it to mainly to help the uncle and auntie who is wondering around Best Denki or Gain City, to nudge them towards a higher efficiency option within that compliant range? If so, do we really need at least 10 sets of information on that sticker? This matters because the label is only effective, it is not only just rich in information, but it should be useful in helping to shape decision. My last point is about online advertising provision. I understand the need for stronger powers in this space as purchaser shifts online, it will make little sense to just only tighten offline while leaving major loopholes in the digital market space. This is why I also appreciate that NEA has started its clarification with some of the online platforms on the implementation concerns, but there are additional pointers that I would like to raise. First, will there be a transition period for platforms to review and update their listing?”
“I would like to ask whether the Ministry can review the user journey through that lens that I mentioned earlier, and with the understanding that what was once primarily business-centric is now something expected to impact certain individual consumers, households, to some extent? So, questions worth asking: can the process be made simpler? Can there be clearer step-by-step guidance? Can more language support be provided? Can there be automatic reminders or notification if renewal is required for certain registration? Furthermore, some of our residents who are not digitally savvy, might purchase non-bulky instantaneous water heater or mini refrigerator from overseas as part of their shopping. Would there be a possibility that they can register in person simply because they are not digitally confident? If so, could MSE or NEA share what would the process look like? This will go a long way in enabling businesses and individuals to comply with more robust reporting more seamlessly. You see, in policy design, reducing friction is not a soft issue. It is part of what makes policy workable. If we want wider compliance, then the process must be intuitive and low friction as possible. My third point is on the mandatory energy labelling scheme or easily known as the sticker that you see on the fridge that you need to buy from Best Denki. When you buy the fridge from Best Denki, that sticker that you see. This familiar tick has served important purpose by making energy efficiency more visible to consumers. But I think it is also fair to ask whether the current presentation remains useful and usable as it should be, and whether there should be further improvement moving forward.”
“Related to this, it might be helpful if the Ministry can also publicly clarify upfront the compliance cost implication, for instance, the waiving of cost for end users and $80 cost per model of regulated goods applied to local suppliers. I note that the Bill also extends waiver mechanism to persons who intends to import for his or her own use and is unable to comply with a requirement in a particular case, which is reflected in a proposed amendment to section 31B. But again, such mechanism only helps if a person knows that it exists, understands what it may be applied to and knows how to register. This brings me to my second point, which is the accessibility of user journey. I know this may sound operational, but operational details matter because they shape whether people comply easily or give up along the way. If the registration journey is mainly online, then we should think carefully about who are likely the users. When I tried to visit the registration page, my experience is one that the information on that registration page today, it is mainly in English. While some might be comfortable using their smartphones, not all will be fully comfortable navigating an English-only or English-heavy website. There are those who are not deterred by the policy itself, but because of the number of steps they have to go through, they give up halfway. And I am sure most of us at some point in our life would have experienced this because you have to fin so many steps or do many things. Halfway, you decide you do not want to continue that journey of application. In short, what I am really trying to say is that have we designed this portal with various personas in mind?”
“I note that during a public consultation, one suggestion was to require end users, which is consumers, like myself, to buy goods only from local suppliers since local suppliers may be better place to handle compliance requirements. The Government did not take that route, and I think that is sensible. We should preserve consumer choice so long as compliance framework applies consistently. In the same vein, my remarks pertain mainly to ensure that reporting and compliance regime is workable and understandable for the ordinary consumer. Let me explain why. The ordinary layperson does not think of himself or herself as an importer, in any formal sense. To many, they are simply just thinking they are making a purchase. This is especially so because some Singaporeans do cross over the Causeway to buy household appliances because of lower prices. Some might even organise trips with their friends across the causeway to shop for items for their Build-To-Order flats. In such cases, such consumers are unlikely to perceive themselves as importing a regulated goods, subjecting to registration or compliance requirement in the first instance. So, in this regard, I would like to ask how the Ministry intends to communicate these requirements to the public. In responding to how, I am keen to understand how various personas have been considered. As a matter of fact, not every Singapore resident will be following this view, or even looking at this response that I am making, and many might not even realise that if they make purchase of certain regulated goods from overseas for their own use, there might be a need for registration or compliance requirement that applies to them. So, public education matters a great deal.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I am speaking in support of the amendment to the Energy Conservation Bill. Strengthening energy efficiency remains an important pillar in Singapore's energy transition. This is not new, because since 2012, our approach rested on two sensible ideas. First, to set minimum standards for energy performance; and second, to help consumers, like you and I, with clearer information through energy labelling so that households and businesses can make better purchasing decisions. This Bill now takes the next step in this journey. It closes an increasingly important gap by extending the regime to regulated goods imported by end users for their own use, and it also gives the Government stronger tools to deal with non-compliant advertisement of regulated goods that are accessible in Singapore, including the online space. Hence, I support that direction. However, I would like to raise four broad concerns. First, the ordinary layperson does not think of himself or herself as an importer when they purchase goods from overseas to Singapore. Second, the current user journey to register makes it difficult for those who are not confident in English. Third, I wonder whether if it is time to review the volume of information on the energy label. Lastly, the challenges in online platform implementation. My first point is about how we secure support and buy-in of individual customers or consumers. Under this Bill, a person who imports certain regulated goods for his or her own use will have to grapple with the framework that was previously once used for commercial supply lines into Singapore's market.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two cluster of questions and one suggestion. The first is directed to MOE. With rising input costs, how might this translate into food prices in our school canteens? Will MOE work with stallholders to monitor and manage price increase? And should there be any price adjustment, would this be communicated to parents, because what I hear from parents, this is so that they are able to make informed decisions to adjust pocket money for their children. The second cluster of question relates to MOT. In my interaction with private hires with Minister of State Rahayu Mahzam recently, many of them raised concerns about their fuel costs. And with this $200 support, it will help to cushion these pressures. I would like to clarify whether if this is intended as a one-off measure, or would we be seeing this at a more sustained periodic support until fuel prices are stabilised at an acceptable amount? Third, it is a suggestion. One thing I have learnt in my role and caring for Clementi residents, is that, in times of need and time of fear and crises, scammers will leverage on this to tell our residents to do things that will put them in a vulnerable position. So, my suggestion is, could we also in this period of time, increase our advisory on scams and also for all of us, as we interact with our residents to let them know to be mindful for any advisories that come to them that they should always double check and also dial 1799 for any clarification.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her response. I have two supplementary questions. First, whether there are any specific guidance or professional developments to teachers managing a mixed PG classroom. Specifically, I ask this because prior to mixed PG classroom, teachers would teach a class with similar profile, specifically in subjects like Character and Citizenship Education and Design and Technology. Given a mixed PG classroom now, teachers then would have to engage in a classroom with wider student profiles. Second, if there is professional development or guidance given, what is the current take-up rate and training that teachers have gone through and have we gotten any feedback from teachers about the usefulness of such training in helping them to manage a mixed PG classroom with students of different learning profiles?”
“Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for her response. I would like to seek clarification on how the Ministry assesses what it means when parking needs have been stabilised? What criteria or benchmark are we looking at? And how did we arrive at these criteria and benchmark? Secondly, I would like to ask also, as a Member of Parliament to Clementi Division, at Block 463 MSCP, on my numerous visits to this carpark, I have noticed that it has been severely under-utilised to a point that there are no cars on Level 7. And oftentimes, I see that residents are doing their jogs, children are cycling, parents are teaching their children how to cycle. I understand that in the current situation, current circumstance, that it is not ready to be repurposed. I would like to seek the Senior Minister of State on what alternatives can I then give to my residents? Because when they look at me, they are just asking for space and we do have space at Level 7 of the MSCP, but it is severely under-utilised with no cars at Level 7 on occasional visits.”
“Okay. My question is whether the app itself has a multilingual feature so that our seniors or those who are not fully competent in English will be able to use this app. On the second question regarding the Beverage Container Return Scheme, I am supportive of the recycling efforts and the deployment of 1,000 reverse vending machines (RVMs). I would like to clarify whether in areas in Clementi such as Faber Hills Estate, where it is a mixture of landed and densely populated condominiums with no large supermarkets, will there be a deployment of an RVM there? If the answer is not yet, would we consider prioritising condominiums that are densely populated such as The Trilinq and Parc Clematis in Clementi?”
“Thank you, Chairman. I have two clusters of question. The first is regarding the how of the climate adaptation plan, and second is about the Beverage Container Return Scheme. The Minister mentioned yesterday that heat advisories will be sent out through the myENV app. I think that is really useful because most of us have a smart phone today. Yesterday, what I did was, after Parliament, I went to meet my grassroot leaders, in a room of more than 40 grassroot leaders, and I shared this with my grassroot leaders. Then, I asked, "With a show of hands, how many of us actually have the myENV app?" It was only a handful of grassroot leaders who downloaded this myENV app. So, I would like to ask, whether from MSE's point of view, do we know what is the current number of people who downloaded this app? What is our view to that? 11.15 am After that, in my head, I was, "Oh no, for those uncles and aunties 不认英文字怎么办?" So, I started scrolling through the app and I tried to change the language setting to Mandarin —”
“If we measure these outcomes consistently, we can compare performance, learn what works and raise standards across all board. A case in point to why a demand aggregation might be useful is a case of catching chickens. From my research, one Town Council may effectively be paying $200 to catch one chicken and another Town Council pays $400 to catch another one chicken for a similar outcome. So, by having a demand aggregation, we can reduce cost variance and achieve similar outcomes. Finally, the public-facing side as well. Advisories for food operators and residents in relation to pest control should remain current, multilingual and practical. Education and enforcement on waste management, food handling practices and environmental cleanliness. should be targeted and sustained. In summary, if MSE and NEA can coordinate standards, pool demand and strengthen shared capabilities, we can reduce the unevenness across estates and deliver a more consistent baseline of public health and liveability for residents across Singapore. Shared Spaces, Shared Responsibility”