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 2 of 3.
“Chairman, I would like to speak on a very practical aspect of a liveable environment and that is pest control, and this is a case for MSE and NEA to play a stronger role as a national aggregator. Many residents experience pest issues daily and lead to frustration, including things rodents and cockroaches, and if left unchecked, these problems can become a public health. I am sure many of you here have received feedback from our residents in this regard. So, I want to suggest that MSE and NEA can do more as a national aggregator for pest control so that we can build a more liveable environment. To be clear, I am not advocating for the agencies to take over the municipal responsibilities from Town Councils. But what it means is using the strengths as the national agency to raise baseline standards. First, MSE and NEA can set clearer common service standards. These would address questions, for example, what should the expected response time be when there is a high-risk hotspot, what constitute an adequate follow-up; and also, what is an acceptable recurrence rate? If we define these standards clearly, it becomes easier for all of us to hold vendors accountable and to assure residents that you get the same basic level of service applied regardless of constituency. Second, there is a case to pool demand and provide shared capabilities because some Town Councils might not have the ability or scale to be able to maintain specialised teams or a surged capacity when a sudden outbreak happens. So, a national aggregator can allow for specialised teams, better diagnostics and faster mobilisation when multiple estates are affected. Third, this can be operationalised through a whole-of-Government demand aggregation contracts with standard key performance indicators and outcomes.”
“If we are able to develop a baseline estimate of outdoor heat exposure across sectors, this would help us to strengthen our support for those who are facing higher heat risks. This could include sector-specific guidelines, more enforcement in construction sites, or practical resources such as having rest areas, hydration access and work-rest protocols that account for real operating conditions. Heat and Water Resiliency”
“We should translate key guidance into major languages and given the target profile that I mentioned, it should not be too wordy or technical. Such information should be placed in places where it is visible, for example, our schools, community touchpoints, common areas, lift lobbies and hawker centres. Given that our young, seniors and also migrant workers spend time on social media, we should also disseminate relevant information on such channels. This is especially important because in the period of April to July, because that is where heat is the most intense in Singapore. Second, allow me to move to household vulnerability. Heat resilience plans should clearly prioritise those with few coping options. So, one practical way is to prioritise micro-interventions to reduce heat exposure in places that people actually spend time. This could include sheltered and ventilated linkways, cooler waiting areas near common facilities and heat mitigation for common corridors and lift lobbies where residents gather. 7.15 pm I would also ask MSE and the National Environment Agency (NEA) to consider working together with the Housing and Development Board (HDB) and Town Council to identify what I call “hotspot blocks” using simple indicators. For example, blocks with poor cross-ventilation, blocks where there are few or no air-conditioned areas such as Community Centres, libraries or shopping malls within a short walk and implement micro-interventions. Third, we need better data to target interventions where risk is highest. It would be useful to publish more information on heat exposure and heat-related incidents. In particular, our outdoor workers deserve attention. Many outdoor workers cannot choose to avoid peak heat hours.”
“Chairman, I would like to speak on heat resilience, with a specific focus on vulnerable groups. While the weather for the past two months has been generally cool and pleasant, we must acknowledge that for the majority of the year and for the foreseeable future, heat will continue to be an issue. For many Singaporeans, hot weather will continue to be our daily lived reality, but the burden is not evenly shared. Children, seniors, residents living in smaller flats with less ventilation or households without air-conditioning will feel the impact of high heat temperatures more severely. Outdoor workers, including Singaporeans and migrant workers in construction, landscaping and also food delivery roles, will face prolonged exposure to heat and rain as part of their livelihoods. In building a heat resilient Singapore for our vulnerable groups, I have three suggestions. First, on public guidance. The good news is this. We already have heat stress advisories and that is a good foundation. But the guidance can be made more accessible and more targeted. The question we must ask ourselves is this – who is vulnerable to heat, and do they know about such advisories? Knowing is one thing. Are they able to digest the information? This is especially important for children and also the elderly, who may experience health impacts at lower heat thresholds than healthy adults. In particular, we must also ask ourselves whether these advisories are age-appropriate and are they easy to act on? For example, if a child or a senior were to look and to read them, would they be able to say, "Oh, I know when to do what and what I should do?" Accessibility and awareness also depend on language and channels of communication.”
“I will attempt to speak slowly. The earlier question is one on students from disadvantaged backgrounds. I wonder whether there will be a stronger baseline baseline for support for all schools. Because for some schools they do have resources in terms of alumni networks and community resources. So, would we be able to consider a stronger baseline so that every child, regardless of which school they are at, if they come from a disadvantaged background, they have access to equitable resources. The third one is on teachers' recruitment. One of the feedback that is often heard is that if you join teaching, you cannot really move to other sectors. I wonder what MOE's view is on this narrative, and whether for prospective teachers that are coming in, maybe it is about highlighting the different skillsets that they have that allows them to be able to move between sectors as well.”
“So, I wonder, can MOE share its perspective on this narrative and perhaps, more importantly, assure prospective teachers that teaching also equips them with transferable skills that allows them to be valuable across different sectors?”
“Thank you, Chairman. I have three clusters of questions. The first is regarding on supporting students from disadvantaged background. I understand that students can tap on the Opportunity Fund. And in a 2026 reply to Mr Gerald Giam, MOE shared that about 50,000 students benefit from it annually. I would like to ask, first and foremost, has MOE studied whether students themselves are aware of the support and how they can utilise it, instead of teacher enrolling for them? Second, what proportion of this 50,000 represent the total number of disadvantaged students? And third, more broadly, while more additional resources are given to supporting students from disadvantaged background, I also understand that not all schools start from the same baseline. Some have a stronger alumni network that they can tap on or community resources. I wonder whether would MOE ensure a stronger baseline across all schools so that students from disadvantaged background, regardless of which school they are in, will have equitable access to opportunities. Second cluster is about GEP module centre. I understand that students can take public transport to GEP centres. However, if the younger students are in Primary 3, about nine years old, do we have a guideline in terms of the reasonable commute time? The third one is on teacher recruitment. MOE also earlier shared about the challenges on teachers recruitment about, including competition between private and public sectors. I wonder whether MOE has thought about the occupational mobility as a factor. Because I have heard from many who say that if you join teaching, you cannot really see a career switch.”
“If we believe in equity, we must design a first access for students who have fewer resources or come from disadvantaged background. We should remove practical barriers in this regard. For example, it should be simpler sign-up, transportation support and if there is a need, for a small allowance, so that participation does not depend on the student's financial or family situation. And beyond SkillsFuture course, we should also scale this at adults as well for short learning journeys for adults. This will give our adults a more realistic view. Building Resilience in Our Students”
“For students from less resourced or disadvantaged background, such opportunities to discover their interest matters even more, because if you come from a family without strong professional networks, you cannot easily borrow career insights from your parents or friends or find informal internships through social connections, because what you can see is what you can imagine and what you can imagine shapes what you dare to pursue. So, structured exposure if done well, becomes an equaliser, because it substitutes for who you know and it helps students to build confidence, aspirations and a clearer sense of fit. So, I urge MOE to consider these three moves. First, to expand and better standardise access to career exposure across schools. This includes internship, externship, where feasible, but also shorter and more scalable formats, such as our learning journeys, workplace visits, shadowing days and structured career day with real job content. The aim is to ensure the experiences do not sit within some schools, but they are made available throughout our system, especially our non-IP schools and less resourced educational institution. Second, MOE should also consider a better structuring these experiences in line with our priority sectors or industry, where Singapore is trying to build our capabilities. We can work with industry partners and school leaders to curate such experiences. Such experiences should not be one off but should be a sustained exposure that helps students to understand what the nature of the work is like, what kind of skills is required, what pathways exist. Third, for such programmes, priority should be given to those who will gain the most.”
“To remain inclusive, I wonder could MOE consider more protected spaces for non-alumni students in oversubscribed schools so that primary school choice is not driven by structural advantage from networks or resources. In/Externships and Learning Journeys Chairman, I appreciate MOE's effort to broaden pathways and enable our students to make better career choices, such as having educational career counsellors in our schools. This is important because it helps our students and also our young adults to decide what to pursue. However, I think more can be done with regard to this, so that we can see large and more meaningful change, especially for those who have fewer networks. This cut is with regard to internship, externship, learning journeys and structured career exposure. 7.45 pm Today, many of these opportunities exist, but access is uneven. For instance, a better resourced school, especially our independent secondary schools, often have stronger alumni networks, more established industry relationships, greater capacity to organise their visits, talks or attachment. In a recent Clementi community run, I spoke to a student who shared with me that his school very soon, about in one week's time, they will have a sabbatical week for secondary four cohort. These students can choose from a range of different programmes to gain exposure beyond classroom. And he also shared with me his senior, Year Five, previously, just did an internship during school breaks. You see, as a former educator, I understand his worldview, but I also know this is not true for most of our secondary schools in Singapore.”
“This will in turn cause increased differentiation demands and make classroom and curriculum planning more complex, even as we move to have implemented our full subject-based banding (FSBB). While FSBB helps with subject level grouping, it cannot remove the wide difference in readiness within a subject class. A second issue is what affiliation incentives to upstream. See, large affiliation advantages can fuel unhealthy primary school chasing earlier. A possible unintended consequence is families make primary school choice not really based on values, culture or programmes, but because they are trying to secure an easier affiliated school pathway for a good secondary school later. Over time, this can amplify inequalities, because the ability to move house, arrange childcare, mobilise alumni connection is not evenly distributed among the population. So, I would encourage MOE to consider whether the current school affiliation mechanism for entry to secondary school needs to be reviewed. Well, I have some suggestions in this regard. Perhaps MOE can consider either capping the maximum difference between affiliated and non-affiliated cut-off points to two to three points, together with a review with the mark range within each of the AL bands to accurately reflect students' readiness, or maybe to remove affiliation cut-off points completely. To be clear, the goal here is not to abolish school identity, but to ensure that identity does not come at a cost of public confidence in fairness or unintentionally weakening social mixing. This links to the Primary 1 admission as well, especially under Phase 2A, which gives priority to parents who are alumni of the school. MOE has to balance legitimate community ties with the principle that schools should remain inclusive.”
“Thank you. Chairman, I want to speak about affiliation and the balance that MOE must strike between school identity, diverse learning needs and fairness. The mechanism of school affiliation and parents' alumni affiliation has been long part of our education landscape. They help to sustain school ethos, community, and also tradition. Many alumni continue to contribute meaningfully back to schools and this spirit should be preserved. But in today's context, MOE should also assess whether affiliation now might have resulted in unintended consequences. Does it confer disproportionate advantage to some, weakened perception of fairness, meritocracy and social mixing? One practical issue is how large cut-off points gap linked to affiliation can translate into different academic readiness in a classroom, and this makes targeted teaching harder and increase preparation burden on teachers. Let me illustrate this disparity. The cut-off point between an affiliated student and a non-affiliated Primary 6 can be very large. In my research, I found that for one popular school in 2025, non-affiliated cut-off point, the student from non-affiliated school was 10, and affiliated cut-off point is 20. A 10-point difference, not a 10-mark difference. This is not an isolated case, because several schools have similar wide affiliation related cut-off points gaps. This matters, because in our current AL system, some bands cover a wide range of marks. For example, AL 6 spans between 45 marks and 64 marks, and AL 5, 65 to 74 marks. So, a one point cut-off point difference can represent a large spread in terms of academic readiness, what more a 10-point gap? This can significantly widen the range of learners' profile in the same subject classroom.”
“"Taster Sessions" can also cover clear learning pathways. In the event that a learner is interested to deep dive, these pathways should be grouped in a way that is easily understood by individuals, grouped by job role, skills type, level of difficulty or industry type. If we are able to do this well, individuals will have information and better understanding of the stakes involved before committing time, energy, money and even, potentially, a career change. This is especially important for emerging and specialised areas, where interest is high, but understanding is often lacking. Whether be it frontal technologies, green capabilities or strategical domains, what we want is for every Singaporean to be able to enter this fields with eyes wide open. Chairman, providing "Taster Sessions" can further strengthen equity, given how those with weaker networks and lower social capital often have limited means to understand the scope of course and industries. To summarise my cut, SkillsFuture "Taster Sessions" can help to close the information gap and enable individuals to make better decisions, because do we not make many decisions every single day? Equitable Access to National AI Skills”
“Chairman, I support MOE's continued efforts to strengthen SkillsFuture as a pillar of lifelong learning, especially as our workforce navigates rapid shifts in technology and industry demand. As of today, we have a wide and growing menu of courses and subsidies under SkillsFuture. But for many Singaporeans, the hardest step is always the first step, knowing what course I should choose, whether this course aligns to my interests, my aptitude and also my longer-term aspirations. Today, the reality is this: those with stronger networks will have a higher likelihood of knowing people working in emerging or high-value industries. They can talk to these people to ask about what kind of skills they should acquire, what kind of course they should take so that they can enter such industries. But the truth is those without networks or social capital, however, have to spend more time, more energy, more resources figuring out which pathways to take. Surely, our system can do better to reduce such costs, so that decisions can be made better. In this regard, I propose complementing our existing SkillsFuture offerings with something simpler, lighter and decision-friendly. I call this SkillsFuture "Taster Sessions", at lower costs or no cost. "Taster Session" itself gives a flavour of what industry is like or what skillsets you require. A good "Taster Session", however, should provide answers to basic questions, such as "What is this course about?", "What are the skills required for me to do well in this industry or sector?" Furthermore, such Taster sessions can also provide a broad roadmap, a landscape of professional pathways. What are the positions that are there in this industries, and what kind of skills I should acquire, so that I can assume responsibility in these roles.”
“Mr Speaker, I want to conclude that the need for whole-of-Government approach to tackle the issues that I have mentioned earlier – parenthood and inequality are wicked challenges. The solution does not sit nicely in one agency, neither does the outcome rarely take the form of a voucher or a subsidy. Taken in isolation, let me submit to everyone that many ideas that I just raised today run against the Ministry's baseline mandate. Because transport agencies will rightly push for a car-lite vision; housing agencies will manage land scarcity and affordability; and fiscal agencies will rightly guard anything against these benefits becoming permanent. That is why we need a whole-of-Government approach only when there is a central agency that sets an overarching objective, deliberate trade-offs, compel design and serve system-wide goals. I make this point because it links back to family and opportunities. When system runs coherently, residents experience less friction. Mr Speaker, Budget 2026 reflects a continued commitment of supporting families and investing in our children, and I welcome the concrete measures to strengthen affordability and support families with greater needs. But the trends we face, especially on fertility and the risk of widening opportunity gaps, I ask for something more: a sharper willingness to reshape lived experience through whole-of-Government approach, not just in flagship policies, but also in the everyday systems that determines friction, time and stress in residents' lives. I support the Budget.”
“That is why, previously, I have mentioned the idea of a means-tested "Curiosity Credits," which is a simple idea that regardless of any family background, every child should have the budget to be able to allow them to discover their interests and strengths by having the opportunity to try things, like songwriting, playing a musical instrument, robotics, sports – and the list goes on. Because today, such experiences come with a price tag. Higher family incomes can pay, and families with stronger networks hear about opportunities earlier and get better guidance on what to try. Lower-income families often cannot. Before and since raising this idea, I have seen smaller-scale pilots illustrating how this can work, especially for children from lower-income households. The principle is straightforward: access to discovery should not be a privilege but it should be part of how we keep social mobility alive and real. Beyond children and our growing years, allow me to segue into SkillsFuture too. We should also have this "try before you buy" a bigger part of our opportunity system. SkillsFuture can consider creating a low-cost or subsidised "taster" lessons or courses and micro-attachments in new industries, so Singaporeans can experience the nature of the work before committing time and money into a full course. At this point, I just want to take a step back and submit that we should, as a country, continue to be anchored in meritocracy. But we also must be hard-nosed in recognising that meritocracy, over time, may also accumulate and compound advantages across generations. That is why we should be open to bolder measures and widen genuine access at formative stages, especially throughout education, which I will expand a bit more on this in the COS debates.”
“Families with more resources can buy enrichment, exposure and networks. As we, as a country, continue to invest in growth and skills, we must keep our promise of social mobility alive. Specifically, I will address two "As" here – awareness of opportunities and access to opportunities. Let me first touch on the awareness of opportunities. As we push into new growth areas and an AI-enabled economy, the first barrier, in my opinion, is not about capability; but it is about clarity. In emerging industries, such as AI, quantum, advanced manufacturing and biomedical sciences, many people opt out early simply because they lack exposure. They do not know what the work actually looks like, what the entry routes are, what are the pathways or what skills are really required there. But those with stronger networks can ask someone, get an introduction and hear early about internships or externships. And those without networks often find out late or, maybe, not at all. Put simply: awareness is uneven and it can become a hidden advantage. So, beyond simply just redesigning a website, we should treat awareness as a policy lever. I hope the new statutory board of the merger between WSG and SSG will reach out to students and workers without strong industry networks. I will elaborate more on this during the COS debates. The second "A" refers to access to opportunities. I have said in my maiden speech that aspirations are shaped by experience, and experiences are shaped by access.”
“If we want parents to feel supported, then our living environment must make it easy for children to burn their energy safely and meaningfully. This is where agencies can work together to convert unutilised spaces, such as multi-storey car parks, into sheltered play and sports areas. Mr Speaker, I have raised this question through a Parliamentary Question before, and my fellow Member Mr Ng Chee Meng also asked the same thing for his residents. I am glad that the Government's position has shifted from just simply stating constraints to saying that it is now being studied. But you see, families need clarity. I still get occasional queries from parents of primary school-going children in Clementi Peaks and I cannot keep tell them that the Government is still studying, because they want to know a definite timeline. So, I urge relevant agencies to share the outcome and timeline of this study soon. On this note, I also want to say that I welcome the expansion of the Dual-Use Scheme so that families can access school facilities conveniently. But just as importantly, we should review pricing and access rules so that these spaces do not just become "available in theory" but out of reach in practice for lower-income households. Mr Speaker, I raise these parenthood points because they connect directly to my next point about opportunity. The release of MOF's Occasional Paper noted that incomes have risen and income inequality has moderated. These are important achievements. But I worry something that is not said explicitly: even if incomes rise, is the opportunity gap widening and is access to opportunities becoming harder? Because many opportunities today cost money, time and prior knowledge of their existence.”
“Today, parents get six days of paid childcare leave, per child, when their child is six years old or younger, but only two days of extended childcare leave when the child is between seven to twelve. This is how it looks like in real life today, primary school children still fall sick and it is rarely a one-day occasion, and they still have medical appointments to go to, and there can be occasional school disruptions such as Home-Based Learning. And for parents with two children or more, the odds of staying home at short notice is actually quite likely. When leave runs out, that same parent told me, she has to take unpaid leave a few times. Our current support environment for parents, hence, may not feel supportive. It then raises a fair question whether the current structure remains fit for purpose. The principle is this: we should keep childcare leave provisions under periodic review, answering the question whether they match the current work and family realities today. For example, instead of a sharp step-down in leave provisions once a child turns seven, we could keep the overall number of childcare leave capped at six days per parent, but allow families to use this portion of their leave flexibly across a wider age band or redesigning the entitlement so it tapers off gradually, instead of a sharp drop, from seven to two. We should also study whether parents with more children should have a modestly higher cap. Another aspect of support is accessibility to play. We often say this: we do not want our children glued to their phones and I agree. But in many new BTO estates, the alternatives are limited or not age-appropriate for older children.”
“We rightly pursue a car-lite vision, and as a member of the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) GPC, I support this as it certainly goes a long way in reducing our collective carbon footprint. But families are not abstract units. They navigate daily routines and logistics and arrangements. For larger families, private mobility has economies of scale and can reduce stress. On economies of scale, this is especially so when larger families have to send multiple children to childcare and school each day, and they would like to spare their household from waking up early just to catch public transport. As a father to two, I know this reality myself, because every time I bring my children out, it is not just "bringing my children out", it is bringing out a stroller, a bag with diapers, milk, spare clothes, wet wipes, snacks and things that I would only realise what to bring after a spill, an accident, a tantrum or a sudden fever. When you do this while navigating public transport, every transfer is a stress multiplier. So against this backdrop, we should consider how we can support families with children to address these realities by providing commuting offsets, such as, another idea, private transport vouchers or even substantial family subsidies for large families for private vehicles. Let me move to the third "S", which is on support. During my PAP Clementi market visit on Valentine's Day, a parent pulled me aside to raise a concern, which I have heard repeatedly from many parents – childcare leave. If one person raises this issue, to me, it is a data point. But when different parents raise the same issue independently, it is a signal. The parent's concern is straightforward.”
“I will be frank here, I do not think that we have really tried a "bigger home for bigger families" housing scheme that ties bigger flats and extra subsidies to having more children, so I think that the idea needs to be tested. I think it is worth studying this idea. At least, it addresses the concern of adequate space if a family is considering having more children and will certainly give them a good nudge in their decision-making before they get married. A second idea is to give families more flexibility to upgrade their larger flats when a new child arrives and relax the existing rules on flat applications within MOP. I am sure many of us, as MPs, have received such requests and what I am about to share is not uncommon. Basically, some families already live in smaller HDB flats, and they find that space becomes too tight after having their second or third child. In such a case, we should consider activating more flexible pathways for them to move to larger flats. For instance, reducing or suspending MOP if couples are expecting or have additional children during that period; and even concurrently "resetting" their eligibility to apply for larger BTOs and for them to accord higher priority in the application process. Of course, these details should be thoroughly considered and debated, but the broader point is this: we should be prepared to use policy design to signal that we are ready and willing to reduce the structural and financial hoops for families to jump if they want to secure bigger and more comfortable living spaces, if they want to raise more children. The second "S" pertains to mobility and commuting stress.”
“I will cluster them into three "S" – first, spaces; second, stress; and third, support. The first "S" pertains to space and housing. Singapore is land scarce and we have to use space efficiently. Over time, HDB flats have become more compact and this is part of our reality today. But if we are serious about encouraging parents to have children and supporting large families, we should make it easier for families planning to have children or more children to secure homes that are conducively sized for them. You see, if we want couples to start thinking about children early, the flats that they choose can influence their decision. One idea is they can select a "room to grow" flat, where it mimics a larger format of HDB units, in what I may call "jumbo BTO flats", and these are thoughtfully designed for modern family needs where some of our families rely on domestic helpers. For example, such flats could include layouts with extra bedroom separate from the main living quarters that can accommodate domestic helpers and better soundproofing so that children can play, sleep or study without the entire household being disrupted. If I were to push this idea slightly further, such flats could be priced similar to smaller-sized units through additional subsidies, but with clear conditions. For example, eligibility to apply for such units could be linked to couples committing to have two or more children within the first five to seven years of Minimum Occupation Period (MOP) after key collection. If they do not meet such conditions, then there should be a clear and fair "down-sizing" pathways with subsidy clawbacks. Let me be clear here – we should be reasonable in exceptions, for example, if medical, fertility or relationship issues arises.”
“Mr Speaker, I am speaking in support of Budget 2026 because it strengthens assurance for Singaporeans and also invest in our future. In this response, I will cover broadly on three issues. The first is on the perceived support to parenthood; second, is on closing the opportunities gap; and third, it is a whole-of-Government approach in how we can tackle the first two issues that I have just mentioned. First, if we are serious about encouraging parenthood, we must reshape the lived experiences of parents or potential parents, which shapes perceptions of support given. To be clear, Budget 2026 takes meaningful steps in the right direction, such as Child LifeSG Credits, raising of income thresholds for preschool subsidies and student care support, and others. All these follow comprehensive steps taken over the past few years to support parents and families, including significant enhancements to parental leave, the Large Families Scheme and many others. But we have to be candid at where we now stand. Our TFR in 2024 remains at a historical low of 0.97. While we all hope that the Government's efforts over the past years would have improved our TFR, in my conversations with parents and also my residents, the current realities makes me doubtful whether this could significantly change in 2026. My point here is this: we have done a lot to encourage Singaporeans to have children for the past decade. But with the historical low of 0.97, it suggests to me that we may not have been effective in shifting the needle. I propose the shift from doing "more" in an aggregate manner to doing "better". Allow me to propose some solutions regarding on how we can overcome such barriers and constraints, drawing from the conversations with young parents and also my resident.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his response. I have three supplementary questions. I understand that telemedicine is suitable in certain circumstances and as of today, SingHealth serve the East side with telemedicine for acute conditions. I would like to just clarify again whether the Government would consider expanding to the two other health clusters serving in the West side of Singapore and also the Central region of Singapore. My second question is, if we do expand, what is the Ministry of Health's (MOH's) view on the services that the polyclinics will provide? Would it be similar or different to the private telemedicine? If so, what are the principles that guide this decision? Finally, on eligibility, currently today for SingHealth Polyclinics, a patient has to be at least 18 years old. Whereas in the private teleconsultation, they have different thresholds. Can I understand what is the rationale and are there plans for a more consistent guideline nation-wide for the minimum age to access tele-consultation?”
“I thank the Minister for his response and I understand that more time is required to study the trends. I have three supplementary questions. First, based on the latest data provided, what is the Ministry of Education's (MOE's) view on that 70% of school-going children attending school and also being able to progress to secondary school? I ask for MOE's view: is this a positive outcome? If this is a positive outcome, what interventions actually contributed to this outcome? Knowing this would help us to better channel our resources. The second question I have is on the role of community. I do know of many ground-ups and also social service agencies (SSAs) that provide academic support for students from disadvantaged families, specifically homework club and mentoring club. Aside from having access to the syllabus online, are there any other resources that MOE can consider supporting such SSAs, such as pedagogical training? Just because one can do Maths does not necessarily mean that he or she is able to teach Maths well. My third question is, beyond academic support, how does UPLIFT enable students from a disadvantaged background to be able to discover their strengths in non-academic pathways, be it in sports arts, or the digital space?”
“I therefore hope LTA’s communications will be clear that the intent is to prevent unsafe misuse, not to encourage policing by all of us and by the public, and that enforcement will be guided by training and clear protocols. Mr Speaker, all these concerns that I raised today really do sound operational, but they go at the heart of public acceptance. Ultimately, this Bill is more than just enforcement, it is about how we live together in a dense, compact city with shared spaces. A "we first" transport culture must mean that pedestrians feel safe. It also means that legitimate mobility aid users also feel respected and supported. Our safety rules must not only be stated but enforced consistently, supported with the right resources and technology, applied with fairness so that vulnerable users are not priced out of mobility.”
“From a layman’s perspective as she was sharing that during my house visit, I could understand why she raised this concern, because it is quite easy to conflate two concepts, power and velocity, together. So, what I then did was I raised this concern with my volunteers at my Meet-the-People Session and my Clementi running group. We sat down together using concepts we learnt from physics and engineering, we drew a free body diagram to simulate whether this concern is valid. Using our very simple physics model, the motors of the mobility vehicle must be able to overcome the downhill component gravity of mg sin θ. Our back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that for a 90-kilogramme system on a typical 4.8-degree ramp, 158 watts is needed to maintain at six kilometres per hour. Let me just say this: I fully acknowledge that this is a simplified model. The point is not about academic precision. The point is about perception. For many users, this fear is real: will I roll backwards at a slower speed? It would be helpful if LTA could also provide reassurance in terms of public communication that devices designed for public paths will not roll backwards on typical gradients, even at lower speeds. Another concern is the issue of being unfairly judged or confronted. Some have shared that they fear being stopped or challenged in public, not because they have done anything wrong, but because they “do not look disabled”. This has been highlighted by disability advocates and rightly so because disability comes in many forms. For instance, some users can still walk a short distance but rely on mobility aid intermittently. If the new regime unintentionally results in more public suspicion or harassment of legitimate users, it will undermine social trust.”
“For instance, given our extensive Police Camera (PolCam) network deployed across neighbourhoods and transport nodes, this raises a practical question of whether we can leverage on the camera infrastructure and analytics to identify wrong behaviour more quickly, such as speeding of mobility vehicles or even pillion riders on mobility scooters, so that we can ensure enforcement can be carried out more swiftly. Beyond enforcement, our behaviour is also shaped by our infrastructure. Just as vehicles drive on roads, where we often have speed limits to remind us drivers of what are the permissible speeds, could we also do something similar for our mobility vehicle users? The broader question is really how do we ensure that the education of this new speed limit is not just one-off, but repeated periodically and ingrained into our behaviour? Finally, I would also need to put out this point that we need to assure and secure the trust and acceptance of users who depend on these mobility devices. Because for many of these residents, mobility vehicles are not a lifestyle choice. This is a lifeline. If the new regulatory regime is perceived as one that is making daily living more difficult, more stigmatising, more uncertain, then compliance will be a lot harder and the policy intent may not be fully achieved. In one of my recent house visits, two of my residents who are wheelchair-bound and they use mobility vehicles to get around, raised a valid concern and I hope the Ministry can give some assurance to this. One of these residents mentioned to me saying that if she were to be travelling at six kilometres per hour upslope, their fear is that they will roll backwards given the slower speed.”
“Presently, the use of NEHR is only limited to specific purposes or circumstances. MOH should also perhaps consider allowing NEHR access to streamline the certification of need. And what this means is that for our seniors, they can just go to the Active Ageing Centre, find a staff who can help them to navigate through the process, generate the medical certification that they need if they have already met the criteria. At the heart of it, we want to make compliance smooth, not difficult. If the perceived expected costs incurred in terms of time and effort are too significant, compliance will be challenging. Second, allow me to speak on matters pertaining to enforcement. In order to ensure that compliance within speed limits and good behaviour with mobility vehicles on footpaths, the certainty of enforcement plays an important role. If not, to the mobility vehicle user, this new speed limit is really nothing more than just head knowledge and may not be taken into heart. Against this backdrop, I wonder how can we ensure enforcement will be more effective. While I think we can deploy manpower to deter mobility vehicle users from speeding in this interim period, I wonder, will LTA consider a technology-enabled enforcement solution, especially at high-traffic nodes at our Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) and also mall linkways. This could include targeted pilots using speed detection sensors, camera-supported enforcement and other pragmatic tools. It could involve working closely with Home Team technology partners, including the Home Team Science and Technology Agency so that detection and responses can become faster and more consistent. A good thing is this: in Singapore, we fortunately have a strong foundation to build on.”
“Beyond the digital space and in light of the target population that I have just mentioned, there is a need to roll out information on this policy shift using physical materials placed at face-to-face touchpoints such as our polyclinics, community centres or even general practitioner (GP) clinics. I know we are serious about implementing this, but I hope that we will be able to reduce the friction involved in navigating the compliance process. At the end of day, we want to ensure that our vulnerable populations who need the mobility scooters will not be deterred by the process. Against this backdrop, I am also heartened to know that the Bill also states that LTA has the power to provide financial incentives, support, grants, aid and assistance. With this in mind, the Government should consider how financial support and aid will be operationalised in the active mobility compliance context. For example, whether there will be means-tested assistance and transitional support for those who are moving from non-compliant devices? In this regard, would the Ministry of Transport (MOT) or LTA be able to share details on when and who can qualify for such financial assistance and the extent of financial assistance so that those who need this more will have this assurance that we are designing this with them in mind? Beyond financial means, allow me to speak further a little bit about the medical certification. As we move towards mandatory data sharing for National Electronic Health Record (NEHR) system, will LTA consider working with the Ministry of Health (MOH) on how medical certification for mobility scooter can be generated based on previous records so that it reduces the friction or the need to see a physical doctor?”
“The fact that time and effort is required to make an appointment, to find a doctor or occupational therapist who could assess and issue the certification; then, they have to pay for the consultation. These are hurdles that individuals who need mobility scooters have to cross. If this process is not implemented well, it may deter people who genuinely need a mobility scooter. Medical certification aside, individuals who need a mobility scooter will also need to cross another hurdle, which is registering and waiting for the approval of their PMA. In the event that the individual is still using a non-UL2272 e-scooter, time and resources will be required to find a compliant e-scooter. My main point is this: if we put ourselves in the user journey, it appears that there are a few hurdles that they will have to go through. Furthermore, if you happen to be a senior who is just slightly below 70 years old, and happen to be not fluent in English and perhaps not great at navigating the online space to register your mobility scooter, your user journey will end up to be significantly longer than expected as you have to rely on the goodwill of others to help you through this process. Hence, I hope that the implementation of this Bill will take into account these anticipated challenges and hopefully, prioritise the user experience by keeping the process as straightforward and simple as possible. For instance, information should be made accessible. It should not only be made available in English, but in all other official languages.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first begin by saying that I am speaking in support of the Land Transport and Related Matters Bill. Specifically, I welcome the Bill's active mobility provisions with respect to those on mobility devices and e-scooters. This is because in my role as a Member of Parliament (MP), I have received multiple emails from different Clementi residents about personal mobility devices (PMDs) travelling too fast on walkways, near misses and the anxiety this causes for pedestrians, especially for our seniors and our young children. Furthermore, other residents in Clementi have also shared with me their concerns seeing seemingly able-bodied users riding oversized devices and also clarifying with me, asking whether it is all right to have more than one passenger on the same device. I am certain that I am not the only MP in this House who has received such feedback. At the heart of this feedback, I can understand the anxiety and concern for the wider community. But beyond supporting this Bill, I have three broad clarifications and concerns. The first is on how do we ensure a high compliance with this new regulation. While the intent of the Bill is definitely a positive one, it is worth noting that for someone who wants to be able to ride a mobility scooter, there are a few hurdles for them to cross. On this note, I am glad that seniors aged 70 and above will be exempted from the medical certification requirement. However, for those that are not exempted, such as those who are slightly below 70, the first hurdle that they would have to clear is having a valid Certificate of Medical Need to use a mobility scooter on public paths.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for her response, in particular, about the frequent inspection for the central kitchen. Against this backdrop, I have four supplementary questions. First, let me begin upstream. What kind of assurance does SFA give on compliance and safety for ingredient suppliers to our central kitchens? Because they prepare and they distribute quite a significant amount of food. On the second topic – which would be about our target population, which is our children – beyond frequent inspection would the Ministry consider placing more safeguards on central kitchens, given the vulnerable young children and also the impact if such lapses were to occur again? Third, on operator selection. What assurance mechanism would there be for schools to be confident that the central kitchen operators are fully compliant with SFA requirements, not only just at appointment, but on an ongoing basis? Lastly, before food distribution, what kind of requirements and checks must be met before it is being sent out? And in light of the recent incident, would SFA consider tightening the requirements before food can be sent out?”
“I thank the Minister for his response and I do agree that the principle of relocation of school is sound. Most recently, a video circulated on social media featuring an individual sharing her primary school experience. She shared that she was the only one in her class living in a Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat and the rest were private property dwellers. In such context, there is a need to consider how social mixing can expand world views and develop empathy for others different from ourselves. Against this backdrop, I have three supplementary questions. First, what is MOE's view on enabling social mixing in our schools? Second, beyond the Outward Bound Singapore (OBS) experience in Secondary 3, where students from different schools get to interact with each other, what other opportunities are there for students to socially mix with one another from different schools? And lastly, I know of parents who shift house because of the Primary 1 application, and Phase 2C of Primary 1 registration can amplify house-based clustering. Would MOE consider tapping on the admin data of primary school intake profile by housing types, as well as identify schools, within two-kilometre radius, have little, or very low, or no public housing, and prioritise social mixing measures for such schools?”
“Such a proactive approach would help turning "planning and promotion" into something that residents can feel in their daily lives: more convenient spaces to move, closer to home, built into the rhythm into their neighbourhoods. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I support this Bill because it strengthens our sports and fitness ecosystem in a way that reflects how Singaporeans live today. In particular, I support the recognition of mind sports and e-sports because it acknowledges that excellence can be achieved cognitively and also physically because recognition can bring structure, standards and safety. But at the same time, we must pair recognition with clear guardrails and clear messaging. Mind sports and e-sports should complement, not replace, physical activity, which remains foundational for health and well-being. And as we pursue preventive health, I hope we can look creatively into under-utilised spaces that can support active living in our neighbourhoods.”
“In this regard, I previously asked the Minister for National Development in Parliament about the feasibility of converting Housing and Development Board (HDB) car park spaces for alternative uses for sports or recreational spaces. In the written reply, the Minister explained that HDB must take into account of parking demand over time, potential disamenities to residents, technical and safety constraints, such as fire safety provisions, exit capacity and structural loading. The reply also noted that where suitable, HDB has supported such requests by converting upper levels of the multi-storey car parks to greenery and community gardens, and HDB will consider other community-benefiting uses subject to site-specific assessment. I appreciate the need for safety and site-specific assessment. At the same time, the current posture could feel a little reactive. It depends on proposals coming in one by one, rather than a systematic effort to identify where are the underused or dormant space that can be repurposed for the good of community. So, I would like to ask: with SportSG's expanded mandate, will SportSG also consider working more proactively with HDB, the Urban Redevelopment Authority and relevant agencies to develop a simple, standard assessment framework and a pipeline of pilots for "fitness activation" of suitable under-utilised spaces, such as upper decks of multi-storey car parks? In fact, both physical sports and mind sports, such as chess can stand to benefit from the conversion of such spaces. They could start modestly as pilots with clear safety and feasibility criteria, and the designs that are low-cost, low-disamenity and easy to maintain.”
“Mind sports and e-sports build cognition, community and excellence, but they cannot substitute movement. An active mind should sit alongside an active body. Third, there are downstream implications, particularly for schools. Today, activities like chess are often treated as clubs rather than sports co-curricular activities (CCAs). With this Bill, students, parents and educators may ask whether this should change, that should not be a club but will be now seen as a sport. Will there be joint guidance with MOE on how schools should treat and support mind sports CCAs? Where interest exists, schools should know how activities can be supported, coached and how participation is valued. Relatedly, how might this affect pathways, such as entry into the SSP? Will the scope of SSP be broadened to include mind sports or e-sports? If not, are there parallel alternative pathways that exist for students who demonstrate excellence in mind sports or e-sports to develop and compete internationally? Finally, I want to speak about the Bill's expansion of the Council role to promoting and planning of physical fitness activities. This aligns well with our national shift toward preventive health. My question is when the Bill speaks about "planning" and "promotion", does it extend beyond programmes into shaping the everyday Built environment that makes such activity easier or harder? For instance, when someone engages in a physical sport, it does depend on the facilities or infrastructure, whether it is available or accessible near home. If such options are far from home, poorly connected or inconvenient to access, the best campaigns will still struggle to translate into daily practice or adoption.”
“If e-sports is to be treated as a sport, then coaching should also be treated as a profession, with standards and safeguarding expectations, and clear escalation pathways. Third, will SportSG consider proactively working with relevant agencies from the start to develop parent-facing guidance, for instance, with MOE and the Ministry of Social Development and Family? Presently, many parents tell me that they struggle to distinguish between training from play, or even to assess readiness of their child to take part in competitive e-sports. A national framework and research-driven guidance could help parents to understand signs of readiness, set healthy boundaries, recognise warning signs of addiction, such as sleep disruption, mood changes or social withdrawal. We should also give thought to seek consent from parents whose children are under-18 entering higher-commitment e-sports pathways, so that parents know what is the child enrolling into and can provide the requisite support. My third point pertains to broader systemic concerns arising from this Bill. First, resources are finite. With the inclusion of mind sports and e-sports, how will the Government guard against crowding-out of resources to physical sports and community participation, which remains critical for population health and social cohesion? Second, recognition should not blur an important distinction. Mind sports and e-sports are not interchangeable with physical sports. We have made a deliberate and forward-looking policy choice to adopt a broader legal definition of sport. That is reasonable. But we must be equally deliberate in our messaging that physical activity remains irreplaceable for health, development and lifelong functioning.”
“Hence, I wonder if it would be good for SportSG to put in place or lay out the following, either in the Bill or when implementing the Bill: a clearer application and recognition framework of mind sports; baseline criteria with inclusions and exclusions more explicitly stated at the outset; a transparent assessment process and a periodic review mechanism of what constitutes as mind sports. Mr Speaker, my second set of questions pertains to how the inclusion of e-sports in this Bill raises a different and more sensitive issues, especially for our youths. We know from research that competitive e-sports training can be intense. One recent academic paper summarised that e-sports athletes may train four to 10 hours per day. For a minority, gaming can become especially problematic given its addictive potential. In this context, I welcome that the Bill because it strengthens SportSG's ability to set codes of practice, guidelines and accreditation standards. These powers are important in e-sports, where quality and safeguards vary widely today. In this respect, I have three questions on how these powers might be used well. First, will SportSG develop a structured youth e-sports training framework? This could encompass age-appropriate guidelines on training hours, mandatory breaks, expectations around sleep hygiene, because that is what parents tell, and a required physical conditioning component. That aim here is not about micromanaging, but it is about building healthy norms, especially for under-18s who are immersed in the world of e-sports. Second, will SportSG require accreditation for e-sports coaches and training centres that run structured programmes for our youths?”
“The Bill already gives a definition of mind sports, which is "a competitive game based on intellectual skill rather than physical skill, such as chess or bridge". My question is: how will SportSG operationalise recognition of mind sports beyond the examples in the Bill? Specifically, are there any tangible inclusion and/or exclusion criteria that can be laid out? For instance, in my view, mind sports typically consist of one, or a combination of the following: deep concentration, memory, pattern recognition, decision-making under time pressure and composure under stress. But these characteristics are not unique to chess or bridge alone. In my conversations with my residents and also my volunteers after Meet-the-People Sessions, they asked, "David, would games like Pokemon cards, mahjong, poker also be considered as mind sports?" because if those characteristics I mentioned earlier, they do qualify. I must tell you one that someone mentioned. They asked, "Would even buying Toto or 4D at Singapore Pools outlet could be construed as some as a form of mind sport because there is some element of competition in winning a few million dollars?" Some may even say, "It involves some level of intellect because you have to study the number pattern that have "opened" previously before you decide what number to buy." So, without clear criteria, we may risk inconsistent decisions, disputes and perception that mind sports is ad hoc. If the term "mind sport" becomes too elastic, it may unintentionally undermine the credibility of mind sports as serious competitive pursuits.”
“Mr Speaker, I am speaking in support of the Singapore Sports Council (Amendment) Bill. At its heart, this Bill is a modernisation exercise. It updates a 1973 Act so that our national sports agency can reflect the sporting and fitness realities of Singaporeans today. This Bill does three things: first, it expands what we legally recognise as "sports" to include mind sports and e-sports; second, it extends the Council's remit beyond sport into physical fitness activities; third, it strengthens the Council's ability to uplift standards, through research, coaching guidelines, accreditation and the establishment of training institutions and facilities. I support these changes because it also recognises three realities. First, sport has diversified. Competition today not only happens on courts and tracks, but also on boards and screens. Some of our young people compete in inter-school chess championships, while others represent their campus in organised e-sports tournaments. Second, our national focus has widened. It is no longer just about participation in sport, but building an active, preventive-health culture. Physical activity is increasingly seen as an upstream investment in long-term health and well-being. Third, high performance sport today is scientific and multidisciplinary. The Bill emphasises on standards, accreditation and institutions that reflects this reality. While I support the Bill, I would raise four clusters of issues for consideration on mind sports, e-sports, broader system implications and active living through physical fitness and the built environment. My first set of questions, like many have spoken, relates to the meaning and operationalisation of the term "mind sports".”
“If we pair these reforms with fair processes, proportionate standards, transparent governance and real sector voice, this Bill can help to build a social service system that is both stronger and more trusted. With these points, Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.”
“My fourth point on procedural fairness must be clear and accessible. The Bill allows NCSS to revoke sector-member appointments, with appeals to the Minister within 14 days, and with Minister's decision being final. These safeguards are important, but they must be usable in practice. In the guidance, it would be helpful to ensure that: there are clear written reasons for refusal; there are reasonable timelines and plain-language appeal templates; accessibility support for smaller agencies with limited administrative capacity is made available and accessible; and a predictable and transparent processes that are laid out so that this regime, this process is experienced as a fair one rather than an arbitrary one. Finally, a few asked me this question, because the public will eventually ask this: after this Bill, how will we know that the sector is stronger? The Bill anchors NCSS' objectives clearly: effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, stronger delivery, capability and ecosystem development. These are the right goals. But citizens are also looking for measurable signals. Without oversimplifying complex social outcomes, it may be useful to publish sector-level indicators such as service access and timeliness, aggregated service-user satisfaction and outcomes, and workforce retention and training uptake. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a saying: if you want to go fast, go alone; if you want to go far, go together. And social services are, by definition, a "go-together" endeavour. They are a vital pillar of the "we first" society as we seek to strengthen. This Bill strengthens our ability to go together, through clearer stewardship, clearer standards, stronger coordination and modern governance.”
“The Bill introduces "sector members" and requires compliance with prescribed standards for management, administration, service provision and cooperation with NCSS in section 15(4). This direction is sound since standards protect service users. But there is also a real risk if compliance becomes too heavy or too uniform. NCSS' own Industry Digital Plan for Social Services has highlighted uneven capacity across agencies, particularly in digitalisation and capability building. This, in my view, is a proxy indicator for broader compliance risks. We should avoid a situation where: reporting becomes a hidden tax on smaller SSAs; agencies with weaker back-office capacity fall behind; compliance becomes a proxy for quality, but actually they are not always the same. These two are not the same. In my view, I think a proportionate, tiered approach to standards, supported by templates, shared tools, transitional support, would help to ensure that raising the floor does not inadvertently shrink the sector. Allow me to clarify what does "proportionate, tired approach" means. It means ensuring that all agencies meet clear baseline requirements for safety, governance and accountability, while scaling additional compliance and obligations according to an agency's size, risk profile and service complexity. Smaller community-based agencies should not be weighed down by the same administrative burdens as large, system-critical providers, while agencies serving more vulnerable populations should rightly face with higher safeguards. Paired with shared tools, templates and transitional support, such an approach will allow us to protect service users without unintentionally squeezing out innovation or capacity on the ground.”
“It should include practical exposure to service users' journeys; for instance, having prior experience on seeing how a resident moves from first contact to assessment, to referral, to ongoing support. This enables an understanding of where friction occurs, where people fall through the cracks and what dignity in service actually looks like. These are not soft qualities. They are practical lenses that help a Council to anticipate unintended consequences, blind spots in standards and design policies that citizens can actually live with. We must also avoid the possibility of a perception risk where nomination pipelines are dominated by larger agencies with more administrative capacity and wider networks. While I do not think every detail needs to be hard-coded into primary legislation, I think a clearer competency framework would strengthen confidence in how the Council is constituted. Put simply, the Council should collectively cover a balanced mix of core skill sets. For example: service delivery and practice insight; skills in governance, risk, audit, finance, accountability; sector capabilities and an eye on quality improvement. At the same time, beyond skill sets, the Council should be mindful of representation across sectors, including diversity across sub-sectors that ensuring smaller and specialised SSAs have a meaningful voice. At the heart of it, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not about excluding anyone; we know everyone can bring something to the table, but what is also equally important is what exactly does this table needs so that we can be more effective in the work that we do. Third, we should also avoid unintentional compliance burdens on smaller agencies, as mentioned earlier.”
“But if standards become too rigid, then the "cost of trying something new" rises. Staff may worry that a pilot will fail an audit requirement, fall outside prescribed service boundaries or create additional reporting burden. All these can create a risk-averse culture where agencies stick to safe, familiar programmes, even when emerging needs require new approaches. In this regard, social needs are not uniform. What works for seniors living alone might not work for youths-at-risk. What works for families living in a rental block may not work for persons with disabilities navigating employment. Hence, we should strive to continue supporting innovative and tailored approaches as we journey towards strengthened sector coordination with this Bill. One possible way forward is a "standards-plus-sandbox" approach over clear baseline for safety and governance, paired with structured space for innovation and differentiated models. This allows for consistency without crowding out creativity on the ground. My second point, like many have mentioned, is Council composition and sector nominations. The Bill requires that at least half of the Council, excluding the Chairperson, to be appointed from individuals nominated by sector members. It also allows the Chairperson to exclude nominees who do not meet prescribed requirements. Also, when appointing the members of this Council, the Minister must consider whether the members of the Council will collectively possess appropriate knowledge, skills and experience for the Council to perform its functions effectively. Against this backdrop, I was asked what is considered "appropriate knowledge, skills and experiences". From my viewpoint, it should not be narrowly read as titles or credentials.”
“Mr Speaker, before I begin, I would like to declare my interest that I work in a philanthropic organisation and was also one of the "40 Under 40" members for NCSS. Today, I am speaking in support of the NCSS (Amendment) Bill. At its core, this Bill formally positions NCSS as the statutory sector developer for social services. It aligns the law with what NCSS has been increasingly expected to do in practice: to build an effective, efficient and sustainable social service sector, and to strengthen the wider ecosystem around it, including community support and volunteerism. Today, NCSS is seen as a sector developer. It is expected to lead, to coordinate and to help the sector evolve. That said, as we strengthen the NCSS' mandate, it is important to carefully think about how these powers are exercised in practice. And for this, I would like to raise five points for consideration. First, there is a risk of over-centralisation and perceived distance from the ground. Stronger coordination is the intent of the Bill, and rightly so. It is important to note that any system-steward model, where the role is not only just merely an operator, regulator or content owner, but as a caretaker of the wider ecosystem, it carries a trade-off. However, one concern on the ground with NCSS taking on this role that we are here is, will it create more rules and frameworks that actually discourage experimentation? If we over-standardise, we may unintentionally dampen the local innovation that specialises in serving specific communities. In my conversation with many agencies, many often innovate because they know what works for the community that they interact with. Many try new outreach methods, new approaches, culturally sensitive approaches or partnerships with schools and employers.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for her response and reassurance. At the same time, I also want to thank the Minister for his written response to my two Parliamentary Questions yesterday on The Clementi Mall. I would like to assure that, even though the three questions are relating to The Clementi Mall, they address different concerns. I have three supplementary questions. First, when CCS assessed the effects of competition beyond pricing, does it also consider non-pricing effects, for example, diversity of offerings and consumer choice, particularly in heartland malls? Because these are places where our residents rely on for their daily needs. I raise this because in Clementi today, a single owner controls two malls within the same catchment area. And in my conversation with my Clementi residents, they shared with me their concerns: "David, over time, will The Clementi Mall also have the same resemblance of tenant mix as Grantral Mall?" My second question is on what basis would the effects of competition warrant intervention by CCS and what forms of intervention are available to CCS, particularly in situations when transaction of sale has already been made? Third, I understand that CCS may step in when it receives information suggesting potential competition concerns. Could the Ministry clarify what type of information this would look like? And would feedback from residents and the general public serve as such information? If so, how might they be able to convey such information to CCS?”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for the response and the reassurance. I would like to clarify a comment that I made earlier. I wonder if I heard clearly that the access to information to electronic medical records by healthcare professionals will be captured in the NEHR access history. I ask this because the Singaporean who was particularly concerned about this Bill sent me the URL to the FAQ in HealthHub that reads, "Your healthcare professionals may be accessing your records from their own electronic medical records (EMR) systems. Access made to your records in their EMR systems are not included in the NEHR access history." I would be happy to share the URL. I just wanted to clarify whether what I heard was correct.”
“Of course, this should be considered with the intent that any integration of overseas health information should be done to strengthen our continuity of care and not compromise data quality and clinical safety. Mr Speaker, in sum, the HIB is a necessary step for our modern healthcare system. If implemented with clear communication, assisted access pathways, and credible transparency, this Bill can help Singapore build a health data ecosystem that is both enabling and trusted. With this point, Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.”