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 3 of 3.
“In practical terms, what this could look like means standard templates, shared tools, training resources, a clear helpdesk and escalation pathway and where necessary, support to uplift baseline cyber security since the system is only as strong as its weakest link. Finally, Mr Speaker, I would like to raise a practical continuity of care issues brought up by some Singaporeans that I have had conversations with. In these interactions, a Singaporean shared with me, and I also understand so, because I have experienced that through my friends who are young parents as well. They shared that some of them would prefer to go overseas for screenings or procedures, because they perceive it to be cheaper and/or faster. For instance, with the initiative such as the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone and the MOU on Corporation in Health signed in December 2025, I think we are likely to see closer health linkages and maybe more Singaporeans might go up north for medical screening and treatments in the near future. However, information generated overseas will not automatically be captured in our national health record system, so I would like to seek the Ministry's view on information generated overseas. In particular, would the Ministry consider capturing reliable and credible health information data from abroad in our system? Because in my experience when I spoke with some parents, when they have newly-born, they are quite excited to search for and know the gender of the child. They would go overseas to do a quick test so that they will know whether it is a boy or a girl. Is there even a possibility for Singapore residents to share the clinically relevant overseas finding with Singapore providers in a way that clinicians can validate and incorporate safely?”
“Some jurisdictions mandate provider contributions through law, while others rely on technical readiness or voluntary participation. Regardless, the NEHR will only reach its fullest potential if data contributions are consistent and timely. In our case, beyond reporting required by law, how would MOH encourage strong compliance in the everyday operations, that is required in the core data that is reflected in our Bill, such as medication list, vaccinations administered and also dental notes, and so on. We need to ensure that this contribution is consistent, prompt, with good quality, across providers. Would there be positive levers such as integration support, performance feedback, recognition of good practices and contributors to be considered for the rest to learn from. Mr Speaker, my second point pertains to smaller providers, reflecting the unevenness in readiness to implement. Cybersecurity audit and reporting obligations are necessary, but they are operationally demanding. Smaller clinics and some community providers may need more time and practical support to meet new requirements properly. From my own experience in procuring cyber security services in different roles, significant time and effort goes into spelling out the requirements, finding the right provider, implementing and ensuring user adoption, all that to say, it requires time. I therefore hope that the implementation of this Bill will be accompanied by the reassurance that: one, transition timelines will take into account of capacity of smaller providers; two, implementation support will be sustained and ongoing beyond simply the launch period.”
“They still come to our Community Centres to collect hardcopy vouchers. Against this backdrop, I wonder what assisted pathways will be available for residents who wish to understand and also know how they can manage their access restrictions? Could this include in-person support at polyclinics, hospitals or even trusted community touchpoints, so that the right to impose, to understand access restrictions, it is not only for those who are digitally confident, but for every single Singaporean? Second, I wonder, will citizens also be able to view their access history in a way that is simple and meaningful; and will MOH also clearly explain what the access history does and does not capture? For example, a resident showed me that if you go to our HealthHub's FAQ page, it says: "Your healthcare professionals may be accessing your records from their own Electronic Medical Records (EMR) systems. Accesses made to your records in their own EMR systems are not included in the National Electronic Health Record Access History." In plain English, what it means is that sometimes doctors and nurses, they see your records through their own systems rather than the NEHR. And what this means is that it would not be captured in the access history, because they are looking for information through their own system. If we want to build trust, then we must be clear what the access history can capture and cannot capture. Beyond these two questions, that got me thinking about the issue of data completeness. As clinicians document care in their own clinic and hospital systems, the NEHR depends on what is contributed through integration. Other systems abroad also show that governance alone is not enough.”
“Sharing information about a cough, a vaccination, a fracture, is usually straightforward. But many Singaporeans will understandably feel unease when information relates to areas where stigma still exists, such as mental health conditions, sexually transmitted diseases, HIV status, substance abuse, self-harm or records that may expose abuse. The fear is not only about embarrassment, but it is about the consequences that will come along too. Specifically, how would such information affect their employability. This is why the Bill's safeguards matters, because access is purpose-limited, it is role-based, logged, restrictions are auditable and misuse attracts serious consequences. It gives individuals the ability to impose access restrictions. The ability to impose access restrictions provides individuals with the peace of mind. In essence, it gives that reassurance to say that, "Hey, I can see my records. I can understand my records, and if I wish, I can limit the information the other party can see", which is important because this is how we build trust. In addition, it is important to reassure Singaporeans clearly by proactively communicating the following, that MOH has stated that NEHR's information is for clinical care and is not accessible by employers or insurers. The message should remain consistent and prominent as the Bill is being implemented. And against this backdrop, I have two clarifications on this. Firstly, let us agree that not all Singaporeans are digitally competent or confident. As we have seen in the recent Community Development Council (CDC) January vouchers, where even after multiple rounds of education, some seniors still do not feel confident in claiming their vouchers digitally.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am speaking in support of the HIB. At the very core, the Bill addresses a very real and familiar problem in the healthcare today: information does not follow the patient always. You see, as care becomes more complex, with more providers, more settings and more chronic conditions, patients often carry their own medical history across the system. For many Singaporeans, the most stressful part of a health episode is not just the illness alone, but it is the friction that comes along with it. They have to repeat their story with every medical visit. They struggle to recall the medication names – sometimes I do – past dosages, or test results that sit in different institutions. For those caring for ageing parents, they become our human bridge as they juggle between appointment letters, WhatsApp photos of prescriptions and fragmented notes of different providers. Therefore, having a well-governed national health record reduces this burden. It supports safer handover between stakeholders in the healthcare systems, such as our GPs, specialists, hospitals and community partners. It also lowers the risk of missed allergies, drug interactions and also unnecessary repeated tests that cost time, money and anxiety. This Bill puts the NEHR system on a clearer legal footing, including governance of access, use and safeguards. For these reasons, I support the intent and direction of this Bill. That said, Mr Speaker, I would like to raise three broad points which I hope will be used to strengthen trust and confidence in implementation. My first point pertains to individual regarding sensitive health data and access restrictions. Mr Speaker, not all health information feels the same to all citizens.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. And I thank the Senior Parliamentary of State for his response. Given that pre-term infants often face prolonged Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) stays and require follow-up appointments, has MOM studied whether the four weeks of unpaid leave per year under the current standard, is sufficient in duration and flexibility? Next, could MOM also consider publishing a public registry of adopters with opt in, so parents can identify supportive employers? Lastly, when might MOM intend to review the effectiveness of the TS and what indicators will it use?”
“They should state plainly that the responsibility lies with the perpetrator and not invite interpretations that the clothing, occupation, social activity has caused harm to be done unto them. This is important because victim-blaming deters reporting and delays help-seeking, and compounds humiliation and distress. My final point: prevention and safety-by-design. Deterrence after harm is necessary, but prevention of online harms upstream is better. This Bill defines serious harms clearly, but we should also work to ensure that major online platforms operating here continue to prioritise user safety and privacy-by-design principles. These include features: (a) age-appropriate design; (b) high-privacy default settings applied for minors; and (c) safer recommender settings for young users. Such upstream measures would ensure that our protections are not only reactive but proactive making the digital environment safer before harm occurs. Hence, I hope that the Government will actively work with major online and mobile platforms on this. In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill gives Singapore a strong framework: defines harms; swift administrative directions; and civil routes for redress. But to make online safety real, we must pair law with speed, prevention, and accessibility. This is how we build an online environment that is safe, fair and inclusive, while upholding responsible speech and due process. I stand in support of the Bill.”
“You see, these design features are not cosmetic, because they determine whether victims can exercise their rights effectively. Thirdly, we should also consider the practical aspects of civil proceedings and cost of justice. The Bill introduces statutory torts, which gives victims the right to bring civil proceedings for defined harms such as intimate image abuse, child abuse imagery and so on. Hence, civil action involves practical hurdles, legal costs, disclosure processes and emotional strain. I would like to ask the Government to provide more clarity on what the typical steps will be for a victim to bring such proceedings and whether there will be support measures, especially for those who might not have adequate financial resources to do this. The Commissioner and the Office should also consider communicating the availability of these resources from the onset, because at the end of the day, justice should never be determined by income. This upfront assurance will reduce the barriers to entry to report and deter the actions of perpetrators. My fourth point of clarification is on issues related to damages, humiliation and redress. Part 5 of the Bill on the directions and orders of the Commissioner, as well as Part 13 of the Bill on Damages and Remedies provide various reliefs and remedies to victims of online harms such as removal of content, account restrictions and compensation. However, I would like to seek clarification on whether non-monetary losses could also be considered within this Bill framework. This may go further in helping the victims to rebuild their lives. Relatedly, public communications and victim-facing materials by the Commissioner and the Office should be trauma-informed and non-stigmatising.”
“Clause 23 of Part 4 provides that victims can report online harms to the Commissioner, but it is also equally important that they know how to do it. Online harm victims will also include those who are less technologically savvy. It is hence vital that we ensure that the process of online harm reporting is kept simple, multilingual and accessible. This could mean: (a) ensuring that the online and mobile service platforms use plain English, not technical jargon, and official languages to communicate to the public and guide victims of online harms through reporting; (b) proactively providing step-by-step guides via major online and mobile platforms, so that they know how to file an online harm notice; and (c) at the same time, setting up offline helplines and community touchpoints for those who are digitally less-confident users to keep them informed of the work of the Commissioner and the Office. Clause 94 in Part 12 of the Bill also allows victims to send an online harm notice to an online service provider. This is a positive step towards direct accountability. But for this to be utilised effectively, online services must make sure that reporting is easy to find and use. In this regard, would the Government, along with the Commissioner and the Office, study how major platforms will implement their online harm reporting in practice and consider whether they are accessible, especially to the vulnerable users. For instance, sending an online harm notice within a mobile app or website should never require a user more than 20 minutes navigating multiple different landing pages and entering unnecessary inputs that the provider would already have gotten from the moment they had registered for an account.”
“As part of implementation, the Commissioner should consider issuing advisory guidelines that set out triage principles, communication milestones, indicative response time across various categories of online harms by severity. On service standards, clause 23 in Part 4 enables victims to make a report of alleged online harmful activity. But while the Bill mentions that it aims to provide a timely means of redress, it does not yet prescribe what counts as a timely response. The point here is this: online harm spreads by hours, not by weeks or months. Hence, I wonder if the Commissioner’s office can consider setting and publicly communicating service standards or target response times for various categories of online harms by severity. Saying this, I am cognisant that speed also requires resourcing. The Commissioner’s office should be staffed and supported to act with urgency. I would welcome the Ministry’s plan for resourcing so that operational targets are achievable rather than aspirational. I also think that it is more appropriate to leave service expectations and operational key performance indicators (KPIs) as guidelines as compared to statute because hard timelines in primary legislation like this Bill may risk overwhelming staffing when spikes in online harm cases occur. Hence, the guidelines can be updated swiftly and calibrated to capacity at the agency level, so that the bar can be set at achievable and meaningful levels. To strengthen this approach, the Commissioner should also consider having a standing advisory group of relevant practitioners such as technologists, clinicians, child-safety specialists and academics to refresh workflows, KPIs, and give guidance on online harms periodically. My second clarification involves accessibility and public readiness.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill is a significant step towards a more accountable digital space. Specifically, it gives victims of online harms, new avenues of relief through the Commissioner of Online Safety, impose clear duties on online service providers, and creates civil rights of action for victims. This Bill is close to my heart, because I have met Singaporeans who suffered from the harms described in Part 3 of the Bill. For them, the humiliation and emotional distress that they have gone through are overwhelming. This Bill, if implemented well, will go some way to deter perpetrators of online harms and give victims of online harms much clearer routes of recourse. Against this backdrop of my support for this Bill, I would like to seek clarifications on how this Bill works in practice across five areas. My first clarification is about the operational tempo and service standards of the Commissioner’s office. On operational tempo, the Bill rightly allows victims to seek the Commissioner’s intervention without first going to court. Beyond "being fast", we also need to communicate what is being done fast. This means that efforts should be made to lay out the process as clearly as possible to the general public, so that the victim knows what actions will be taken and what to expect from the moment they decide to make a report. You see, it makes a difference by telling someone that within a certain number of hours, they will receive a response versus telling someone that over the next X number of hours, actions a, b and c will be taken and they will be updated at the end.”
“Because I have learned that sharing stories is powerful, because then survivors choose to share, even anonymously, they show others it is okay to seek help. It reduces the shame that keeps many silent and turn painful experiences into lessons that protect and empower others. In my view, if we pair strong laws and with early help, empathy at the front line and survival voices that breaks the stigma, we reduce shame, shorten response time and improve recovery. This is how we stay vigilant without becoming fearful, keep trust alive while protecting one another. I would like to close by noting that the Bill strengthens our hand against scammers and I welcome it. But deterrence or true deterrence does not just come from harsher punishment alone. It comes from a system that is swift, certain and smart. Swift in catching offenders, certain in delivering justice and smart in building public awareness. Because at the end of day, the best deterrence is not fear of punishment. It is a society that is alert, resilient and one step ahead of scammers.”
“However, as scams continue to evolve, we must continue to do more to educate or being able to identify deepfakes. We have made progress through Police Anti-Scam Command ScamShield, but I think we can go further. Just as from time to time at work, we have to take cybersecurity quizzes, I wonder if we can have scam quizzes built into ScamShield. And perhaps users who complete the quizzes could also earn some reward or incentive. For example, if you can get 20 or 30 questions right, a pretty high bar, it could entail you to have additional Community Development Council vouchers. The goal, it is really just to be more scam resilient. On another note, I also just want to mention that part of scam resilience is also fighting the stigma associated with the person falling prey to scams. Speak to scam victims, you know that often times they feel shame and fear, viewed as silly or naive by their loved ones or others or even being blamed for their own troubles. Therefore, many may choose to stay silent and not even report being scammed; and scammers will rejoice in their silence. So, we must, hence, fight this stigma, make early help the norm. Our public message must be simple: report quickly, you are not alone, every minute counts. Also, a "report once" pathway would give each victim a single case reference, would spare them from repeating the painful details from agencies to agencies or bank to bank. Just one reference number, find the details all there. Giving scam victims discretion and privacy is equally important as well, including ensuring private spaces for conversations and the option to bring someone else along. We should also consider inviting those who wish to step forward to tell their stories in a safe and respectful setting.”
“Police said that they are working with Interpol to issue red notices because these suspects are out of Singapore. This fact underlines a simple point. The threat of caning here may not deter someone who sits overseas or never plans to set foot in Singapore. The answer then, in my view, has to be stronger and faster cross-border cooperation, coordination and enforcement. Singapore already works with partners within ASEAN, INTERPOL and other countries. My point is, there needs to be a continued deepening of mutual legal assistance channel bilaterally and multilaterally. This may involve a memorandum of understanding between authorities and their counterparts abroad on things like digital evidence requests, standard operating timelines, as well as having dedicated offices to oversee and expedite such cross-border coordination and collaboration. My last point, beyond strengthening our laws against scammers, we must continue to build a scam-resilient society. This is because the law cannot carry full load. We have to build habits, skills, systems that help Singaporeans to determine scams early and act fast. We want a vigilant public not a fearful one. Singapore must never become a place that we suspect every single message and live in constant anxiety. We can teach this balance from young. Pause, check, then decide when encountering something suspicious. In this regard, we should consider incorporating more practical scam education within our schools and community to enable our ability to detect scam activities. Today, our Character and Citizenship Education classes teach students to evaluate and verify credibility of online information sources to recognise and report different types of online scams, including phishing, online purchase scams and Internet love scams.”
“I am glad to hear earlier that the upper limit has room for review. On this note, we should be clear what caning is not. It is not a silver bullet. This brings me to my second point on the economics of deterrence. As someone who had spent years teaching economics, I tend to think of deterrence as a simple equation. Does the expected cost outweigh the expected benefit? In my view, the expected cost of committing a crime depends on three things. One, severity – how harsh that punishment is. Two, certainty – how likely you are to be caught and punished. And three, speed – how fast the punishment happens. In short, deterrence, in my view, mentions three things: severity, certainty and speed. Because if scammers believe they never will, or are unlikely to be caught, perhaps because they are hiding behind a fake or an anonymous account, or operate outside of Singapore, then harsher penalties might not make much of a difference. So, beyond raising penalties, we should raise the certainty, visibility and speed of enforcement and punishment. At the end of the day, we measure what is important to us. In this regard, the Government should consider publishing regular updates on scam activities – how many were reported, caught, and continue amplifying public communications. Why? Because this sends a clear signal that Singapore does not just punish harshly, but we also catch swiftly, in this context of scam activities. My third point is cross-border scams. Many scams that hit Singapore are not run from here. They are operated overseas, layered through syndicates. In late October, Police named 27 Singaporeans and seven Malaysians suspected of running a Cambodian-based syndicate scam ring targeting Singapore believed to be behind at least 438 cases and $41 million in losses.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. This Bill does a few important things. It strengthens our laws against scams, amends sexual offences, raises penalties for causing or allowing fatal abuse to vulnerable victims, revises sentencing for young offenders and updates older provisions to fit today's realities. At its core, it defines new offences, allowing caning for some scam-related crimes, removes caning from others, and refines how we deal with youths and vulnerable persons. In this response, I will focus on deterring scams through tougher and more targeted measures. This is close to my heart. In Clementi, I have walked the ground and sought help for my residents who fell into victims of scams. Their stories are heartbreaking and even more painful when I learnt how their families are affected. Let me place on record by saying that I agree with the direction to introduce caning for scam-related offences. However, I would like to highlight four clarifications and considerations. The first is on discretionary caning and proportionality. For scam-related offences such as offenders who facilitate scams such as the misuse of SIM cards, disclosing access credentials such as Singpass account, this Bill allows for up to 12 strokes of the cane under discretionary caning. I support this direction. You see, scams can wipe out the life savings of many and shatter families. A strong deterrence is justified. However, I would like to better understand how the upper limit of 12 strokes was set. For instance, was the upper limit of 12 strokes benchmarked against other offences with similar harm and culpability? Were the existing caning-eligible offences considered and used as comparisons when setting this upper limit and if so, what was the principle for alignment?”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I am asking this in the capacity as a member of the People's Action Party Mental Health Group. In my interactions with the social service agencies, one of them raised this concern: how do we ensure that those that are below 18, that as long as they are below 18, that this will be adopted? Meaning that if they are below 18, no parental consent will be needed. So, from the social service agencies' perspective, they do not need to reach out for parents to get their consent? Because when this is being adopted, then this will ensure higher accessibility to mental health services.”
“My hope is simple – that we may join hands, set aside our differences where we can, and focus on what unites us, the aspiration of our people and the Singapore we want to build for them. I stand in support of the Motion. [Applause.]”
“While Clementi is home to many young families, a large part of this community is made out of seniors. At a recent community event, I encourage our seniors to embrace technology at their own pace. For some, this is not easy, but I was heartened that they are willing to take the first step forward. But many shared with me their reluctance to go online because of the fear of being scammed. Allow me to cite an example. I told them that they could dial 1799 for the ScamShield helpline if they were unsure. I tried calling the number myself. Every single thing was in English. That made me pause and I asked myself, who exactly is our target audience? If the major group of this service is our seniors, then should that very first option not be being able to choose your preferred language? In fact, this is not just about anti-scam tools. It is about the overall direction of our digital Government services. Many websites, apps and hotlines are still mainly in English. ScamShield is just one example, but the principle is broader. If we want our seniors to live confidently in the digital world, then we must make sure our products and services must be designed with them in mind. In closing, for our children and youths to be able to define and realise their aspirations, for our parents to be able to raise their kids well, and for our seniors to be able to thrive in a changing world, this does not happen by chance. We need to build the building blocks to make them happen. It takes all of us in this House, whether you are a PAP white or a WP blue, whether you are an officeholder or a backbencher, to build and hold these blocks together.”
“This is why I turn, now, to the importance of making sports and recreation more accessible. During my house visits, several parents of primary school-going children shared their concerns with me, that in our new Built-To-Order (BTO) estates, and even in my own BTO estate that I live in, we often have playgrounds but know of few sports facilities. Some even noted that their homes were far away from the nearest basketball court and as a result, the easy option is to keep the child at home and let them use the phone. So, I suggested, I said, "Uncle, Aunty, why not you book the basketball or badminton court in the school compound close to your home under the dual use scheme for your child to use, and spend your ActiveSG credits there while you're at it". Sounds great. But to my surprise, I learned that ActiveSG credits cannot be used for such school facility bookings, even though it is managed by ActiveSG. Instead, for those who wish to book such sports facilities in schools, they have to pay out of their own pocket with a credit card or PayNow. Small as this might seem, but these last-mile barriers matter, and I urge a review to ensure that access to sports is affordable, simple and holistic. If it requires inter-Ministry coordination, then we must do better. In this regard, I ask whether the Minister of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY), Sports Singapore and MOE should consider ensuring that ActiveSG credits can be used for a broader range of sports facilities, alongside with payment gateways options that are harmonised and inclusive. Allow me to move on to the third group, which is seniors, who I have grown to love, about how we can help seniors to thrive in the digital world today.”
“It is also in that very same response, my heart sank when I saw this, because MOH's response shared that the average length of a newborn in Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) is between 154 days and 299 days. Many of these preterm babies spend weeks, sometimes months, in hospital. This translates to significant out-of-pocket costs for parents, even when our subsidies kick in. We should consider how to help these parents better. Truth is, parents of preterm babies will likely exhaust their leave before the child even comes home. And I know this first-hand because my son was born preterm. And yes, this is why I am asking if we could do more for parents of preterm babies because they reached out to me via Instagram after I posted about it before the General Election (GE). One of the ways is whether we can better support them through stronger workplace arrangements at such sudden and overwhelming moments. Specifically, I wonder if the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) can consider extended or flexible leave provision accorded to parents of preterm babies beyond our current Government paid maternity and paternity leave schemes, which is great. This could take the form of a cap extension tied to the additional number of days that a preterm child spends in NICU, so that no parent has to ever worry about running out of leave before the baby comes home. Now, supporting parents at the earliest days of a child's life is critical, but you and I know the responsibility does not stop there. As children grow, their needs change. From ensuring care in their first few fragile months of their life, we must also ensure that our children have healthy opportunities to play, stay active, develop holistically and not being glued to their phones.”
“" So, David does not know. What David did was – I was not sure, so I called the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB). And follow me; I was told to go to the CNB website, scroll all the way down to e-services, click on feedback and enquiries, and file a report there. I was genuinely puzzled. How is drug reporting the same as general feedback or general enquiries? Furthermore, I tried. No Singpass login was required. My main point is this. At the end of the day, if we want our children and youths to be able to continue to grow up in a Singapore that is drug-free, then reporting must be accessible and intuitive, beyond just vape or drugs reporting. Even if you take my recommendation, I wonder whether we can just have a one-stop shop for reporting because today, there are just so many platforms that you can always report things – one service, one form, another form. From children, I will move on next to our families. Let me first and foremost state the obvious. Every parent wants their child to be born healthy and be healthy. But let me also say that not every parent will always be so fortunate. Because according to a KK Women's and Children's Hospital's press release in October 2024, , they said, and I quote, "even with declining birth rates and advancement in medical care, Singapore has a relatively high premature birth rate". And also, in the Ministry of Health's (MOH's) response to my PQ yesterday, Singapore's premature birth rate in our restructured hospitals over the last five years has grown from 10% to 11%. In other words, one in every 10 births is premature in our restructured hospitals. This is much higher than our Asian neighbours – Hong Kong at 6.5% and China at 6.9%.”
“This could mean compelling bullies to remain in school premises, in a separate room, even if they are suspended from class. In their suspension, they are to experience a guided reflection session where they have to confront the impact of their actions, reflect why that was not acceptable and arrive at a resolution. Creating a safe environment for our children goes beyond tackling bullying. An equally pressing threat that I want to address today is the access to drugs and youth vaping. I recognise that tackling both issues require a multi-pronged approach. However, I want to highlight, based on what I have heard from different Singaporeans, a key gap in our current reporting mechanisms. Today, reporting online vaping reporting requires a Singpass login. And to have a Singpass account, you must be at least 15 years old. What this effectively means is that if you are under 15 years old, you cannot make an online report. Many of these children and students who may witness vaping in schools or even around their town neighbourhoods, are 14 years old and below. With the response by Minister Ong Ye Kung, I am heartened to know that our young are able to call at the Tobacco Regulation Branch to report. But can I also say this: we must understand our target audience. Today, many youths are less or not comfortable picking up that phone to call and file a report. But ask them to fill up a form, or anything online? They are a lot more comfortable. Also, the hotline operates from 9.00 am to 9.00 pm. This is why I hope the task force can consider making youth-appropriate channels to make reporting easier. Let me share another recent example someone shared with me recently. On Telegram channel, where you can purchase drugs in Singapore, he asked me, "David, how can I report?”
“Because even with the best opportunities, a child cannot pursue his/her own aspirations if their learning environment is not conducive, and bullying has been a pressing concern. MOE's recent announcement on 27 August regarding its plans to address bullying is timely and praiseworthy. It plans to sharpen school policies, provide more accessible reporting channels and – I like this – cultivate a culture of kindness. All these are important steps. But on this note we should review our existing frameworks on discipline and consequences for bullying. Current measures today range from warning, counselling and suspension to more serious sanctions. These have their place, but we must ask a fundamental question: how effective are they in changing behaviour and preventing repeated harmful acts? Take suspension, for example, which I mentioned two days ago. Previously, suspension was painful, painful because you would not have the ability to interact with your friends because you are not in school, and even if you wanted to head out to play basketball in the daytime, there is no one to play with you. That boredom was real, it is painful. However, I also said this that if you have access to a mobile phone, because this is what a parent told me, during your suspension, I mentioned you can play Mobile Legend, but you also play Roblox, and suspension is seen as nothing more than just a holiday. Without a structured approach, the time away from school does not build accountability. In fact, it risks trivialising the harm caused. If a child returns without genuine reflection or remorse, the underlying behaviours may continue and the victim remains unprotected. So, we must find ways to make disciplinary actions more purposeful.”
“By moving beyond a single examination as the necessary condition, which is PSLE, we can redefine success more broadly as a society and allow children with different strengths to thrive. As MOE itself has said in April 2025 in an online primer, they said, I quote: "The future of Singapore’s education system is not just about choosing to keep or eliminate PSLE." I agree. "It is about how we can customise learning pathways to meet diverse abilities, needs, interests and aspirations of future generations. It is about how we can embrace learning beyond schools and books and help students discover the joy of learning to lay the foundations for self-motivated, lifelong learning." It is in this spirit, broadening entry pathways is not about removing rigour, but it is about right-siting students in environments where they can flourish. We already see glimpses of this through the DSA, but this remains supplementary to the PSLE rather than a truly parallel route. I urge MOE to continue to pilot or consider piloting new models. This could take the form of a through-train programme from primary to secondary school, which we heard before, or alternative entry requirements instead of a single high stake at accumulative examinations that have substantial impact on our child's future. The truth is, even as I say all these, as a former educator, I know the logistical challenges are real. But I also know that if we want to embrace a child-centred model of education, we should and we must find ways to make it work. Examinations and pathways are just one part of the education system. Let me focus on something else: the learning environment.”
“Just as SkillsFuture encourages adults to upskill and pursue lifelong learning, curiosity credits would give our children a structured but flexible way to explore, experiment and build confidence in their formative years. Importantly, I must say this. Curiosity credits should and must be means-tested, so that families who need the most support can draw on these credits, because curiosity credits can help close a starting gap in life, by giving children that come from less advantaged background a means to access opportunities that they otherwise cannot have access to. To be clear, we already have a wide range of policies and programmes to support our young, but what I am proposing is we can do more. A Child Development Account in our early years helps to defray preschool and healthcare expenses. But it does not allow that very child to explore enrichment classes that are beyond the preschool setting. Let us move on to Edusave. Likewise, you cannot tap on your Edusave account to pay for a dance lesson at our Community Centre, or even a robotics class at a private provider. So, my point is this. Curiosity credits can bridge opportunity gaps early, ensuring that every child, regardless of their background, has the foundation to shape his/her own definition of success. But while curiosity credits can help children discover their passions, this alone is not enough in shaping the outlook of success. Today, the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) still remains the main gateway to secondary school. I urge the Ministry of Education (MOE) to consider broadening entry pathways to secondary schools.”
“But while having this definition of success is important, today, I want to spotlight on how can ensure that we have the sufficient building blocks to help Singaporeans to not only define but also to realise their own definition of success. Specifically, I will look into three groups – our young, our families and our seniors. Let me first begin with our young. In 2024, the average monthly household income of the bottom 20%, or B20 households was under $4,500, according to the Department of Statistics. A beginner robotics class, guitar class or speech and drama class today would easily us $200-$300 a month. Exposure to such classes and lessons are important because they help our children to explore their interests beyond a typical school setting. From these interests, with time and practice, they grow into strengths and from these strengths, they grow into definition of success. But these activities are out of reach to children whose families cannot even afford such lessons. And it pains me when I learnt that such opportunities depend on family income, because if I truly want every single child to be able to define their own version of success, then should not access to such experiences not be a privilege but a given? This is why I propose the idea of "curiosity credits". This is a scheme where every single child has credits that they can draw upon to explore new opportunities, be it in arts, sports, technology, or any other fields. The goal, really, is to nurture curiosity. It is to help children to be able to recognise their strengths and interests and perhaps, ignite a spark that could guide them in their lifelong journey. Curiosity credits, what is this? Think of this similar to SkillsFuture, but SkillsFuture for our young.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand today in support of the Motion to thank President Tharman for his address, and to air the voices and concerns of Singaporeans. It is their aspirations, struggles and daily lives that form the very foundation of my presence here today, and I believe everyone here today here in this room. And I am also grateful to the residents of Jurong East and Bukit Batok GRC for allowing me to represent them in the 15th Parliament. Allow me to begin by first saying that I am a product of my experiences, from growing up in a dysfunctional family, having gone through the Normal (Technical) stream, fulfilling my dream of becoming an educator, founder to a few social empowerment programmes and today, a husband and a father of two beloved children. All these experiences have shaped my worldview. But they are not the only ones. Today, I am very fortunate to be able to represent Clementi residents and people from all walks of life and these experiences will surely influence what I will say, do inside and outside of this House. But for now, let me to share a few thoughts on being "we first" society. Underlying the idea of a "we first" society, it is no one gets left behind. I have some thoughts on what it means to build an inclusive society, which I will continue to develop as I go along in my term and as I grow into my role as a Member of Parliament (MP). Most of us have heard this countless number of times, that we should all have our own definition of success. And this personal definition matters, because they guide our aspirations in life.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker and I thank the Minister of State for his response. I am particularly heartened that we will consider four languages for our seniors because this is something that my Clementi residents have reached out to me about. When they called the ScamShield hotline, everything was in English. I have three specific supplementary questions. The first one, I am heartened to know that it is going to be in 2026, but could we have a specific deadline for when we will we see this rolled out. The second question is, from the interim period from now till then, if our seniors have clarifications whether a particular call is a scam call, could we share what could we do about it for our seniors? And the last question is a suggestion. Could we consider having a senior mode, because sometimes, they tell me, "David, you talk too fast." So, in the same way, whether a senior mode will allow for them to click a particular number and for that operator to speak slightly slower.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for her response, in particular, supporting our students that come from lower-income families. I have two supplementary questions. The first, could MOE share what are the avenues a child from a lower-income family have today, if he or she is interested in learning something that the school does not have provision for? For example, if they would like to learn ukulele, but where can they go to? Because, truth be told, I cannot keep telling my residents and also our young Singaporeans to say, "Go to YouTube and TikTok to learn," when there is a starting fixed cost to it, because their families might not be able to afford. My second question is, I wonder whether MOE would consider the possibility of expanding the ringfencing of our Edusave, where students are then able to tap on some portions of this to be able to pay for the fixed cost that is required, so that if they want to continue learning via social media platform to learn how to play certain musical instruments, then they can also do that.”
“Thank you, Speaker. And I thank the Minister for his response. Allow me to say that my three questions come from conversations with various Singaporeans. First and foremost, it is about disciplinary measures. Could MOE consider moving from home suspension to in-house suspension in school? Reason being because suspension during my time was painful because you do not get to interact with your friends and even if you go to the arcade, you have to be home by 6.30 pm. But parents do highlight to me that with the access of mobile phones today, a home suspension just means that at home, they can play Mobile Legend. This then makes us question the effectiveness of home suspension. So, could MOE consider moving from home suspension to in-house suspension? The second question comes from the fact about the well-being and the safety of the person that is reporting. Could MOE consider a standard anti-retaliation clause, explicit consequences for post-report harassment and communicate this to students and parents, because what they do know is that for students who report, they are worried that the parents of the person that they reported on will come after them. And the third point is about accessible channels. I recognise that there are a few accessible channels mentioned earlier, but we wonder whether could MOE consider specifying a minimum bundle of reporting options, such as those mentioned earlier, peer support, online reporting and so on, so that this allows schools to have a common baseline and every child in all schools will know that these are the various tools that they can access, while still allowing schools to retain their autonomy.”
“Speaker, Sir, I have two supplementary questions. These are questions from parents. For youths who consume vaping overseas, what is our position on it? Similar to when the youths consume cannabis. That being the first question. The second supplementary question is about reporting. Earlier, a Member mentioned that a lot of these can be purchased online. But then, we also realise that for those youths that are below 15 years old, if all these are online platforms, we wonder whether if there is an appropriate platform for the youths to be able to report?”