Denise Phua Lay Peng
Singapore
“Sir, as Singapore ages, disability and ageing will increasingly overlap. The line between disability services and elder care services will blur. Many adults with disabilities face similar challenges as seniors in varying degrees, but at a younger age.”
“But the SPED schools are run by a lot of the other professionals as well such as occupational therapists, speech pathologists, psychologists, coaches and so forth. And I ask for MOE, as it always looks at SPED educators, to also focus on this other very important group; because retention is capacity.”
“Are there other strategies that the Prime Minister will consider, like easier adoption procedures to have more people adopt, more of us Singaporeans adopting? The second is, in terms of immigration as well, to bring in people who are of the right profile and suitable profile to grow our Singaporean population?”
“Enterprise grants should include accessibility compliance requirements. Inclusion cannot rely on goodwill alone. It must be systemically built-in. And finally, move five: on strengthening intermediaries and social service agencies (SSAs). Sir, if AI is to be whole-of-society, then SSAs cannot be left behind.”
“When SSAs become AI-enabled, the most vulnerable of us benefit. In conclusion Sir, Budget 2026 sets an ambitious direction: AI ecosystems, SkillsFuture strengthening, innovation hubs such as Lorong AI and the future AI Park at one-north. Ambition is necessary, but it is execution that determines whether progress is shared.”
“I thank the Minister of State for her assurance, assuring the House that there are indeed alternative identification methods available for those who are unable to use facial recognition. Just a couple of supplementary questions. Number one, are these measures systemic and applicable for all fully digital or not fully digital banks?”
The complete record
Every one of 1,094 lines we hold for Denise Phua Lay Peng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 22.
“I think Acting Minister Jeffrey Siow has mentioned that temporary assistance will be provided for those who need them for essential services. Co-funding will be given as well. For many of these vulnerable groups, for example, the elderly, the disabled, the younger disabled, those who are in special education schools and so forth, they have very few alternatives in terms of transport mode. I worry that if the measures are too blunt or too low even after co-funding, the service providers who chose to provide essential transport services for this group might choose to exit. That is something that we do not want to see because it does create more hardship. So, I want to ask if the relevant Ministries, for example, the Ministry of Education (MOE), MSF and MOH, who are supporting this group, before they make their final decision and announce them, can you do a more detailed study in terms of the impact and perhaps look at tiering some of these measures before announcing them, and provide a space to have flexibility for those who are truly undergoing hardship or will create hardship, to protect the vulnerable who have few alternatives and also to preserve those service providers who have other alternatives to make money but choose to serve this group of vulnerable people? For your consideration, please.”
“I just want to thank Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric, Minister of State Goh and the SG Enable MSF team for being really sincere and responsive all these years. Two clarifications. Number one is, I am glad that the Ministry has curated some more enabling skills courses, but there is a real urgency because there is a lot of disruption in the AI-driven automation space, and many of the jobs, blue and white collared included, are really at risk, and there is urgency to have more deliberate intentional effort in this. Therefore, that is why I recommended the National Disability Job Redesign Resource/Fund. So, I would like to hear the Senior Parliamentary Secretary's views on that, because there is an urgency and we cannot wait until all the reports are out. The second one is: there is a strong need also for those with moderate to high needs and that it will take a while for DACs to come up, and also, they are also costly. I wonder if there is a possibility of looking at a lighter version of the ESHs, so that these services can be developed at the local community centres or residents' committee, supporting grassroots efforts as well, because I know many of my colleagues really want to support these families as well.”
“Sir, as Singapore ages, disability and ageing will increasingly overlap. The line between disability services and elder care services will blur. Many adults with disabilities face similar challenges as seniors in varying degrees, but at a younger age. Singapore has built strong community infrastructure for ageing – Active Ageing Centres, Community Care Apartments, home- and community-based care services, even Silver Generation Ambassadors and Healthier SG. If we design a support architecture that connects disability and ageing systems more intelligently and thoughtfully, we reduce duplication, improve outreach and enhance social compact. This is the assurance that families are asking for and the post-school cliff we must level. Sir, let us be visionary and bold. I wish the task force all its very best. Supporting Families with Special Needs”
“Sir, many traditional entry-level roles for persons with disabilities in both blue- and white-collared jobs, such as packing, sorting, basic administrative work and even coding, are replaced by AI-driven automation. If we do nothing, then inclusive hire gains that have been made in our last decade will reverse. We must therefore shift from protecting old jobs to designing new work. The task force should consider a national disability job redesign fund to support the identification of jobs at risk, surface new jobs in the new economy, redesign workflows to allow PwDs who can contribute and strengthen job-coach capability. Failure to do so intentionally and effectively risks reversing the years of good work that SG Enable, disability partners and inclusive employers had already put in. Gap three, life planning and post-parental assurance. The most common question families ask is this – what happens when parents lose capacity or die? We therefore should institutionalise life planning and continuity protocols and encourage families to be part of the solution instead of worrying. Planning should be supported, subsidised and normalised. When death or incapacity occurs, the system must respond with speed, coordination and stability. For families with higher needs, introduce a family life navigator model, similar to the family coach approach in ComLink+. Just as ComLink+ supports vulnerable families with a dedicated guide across life transitions, a life navigator could help disability families plan school-to-work transitions, housing options, caregiver ageing and long-term care arrangements. A resilient system empowers and supports families to act early instead of relying solely on the Government. Lastly, on a thoughtful convergence with mainstream elderly services.”
“Mr Chairman, I thank the Government for appointing the Taskforce on Assurance for Families with Persons with Disabilities (PwDs), chaired by Minister of State Goh Pei Ming. This task force is timely. Singapore already has a strong national roadmap in the Enabling Masterplan 2030. But there are pressing key concerns of families, particularly about adult life after school. The task force cannot give assurance to these families without addressing these key concerns. Let me focus on four persistent gaps that the task force should address decisively. One, on funding reform. Mr Chairman, disability spending today is front-loaded towards childhood while adult services operate under very tight margins even though adulthood can last 60 years or more. We therefore need funding reforms based on a lifespan approach. One way forward is a two-tier structure. Let us start with the obvious Day Activity Centres (DAC) and residential home models for adults with moderate to high support needs. First, provide a universal base funding component for every client served by a DAC or residential home. This base amount should be calculated using a realistic norm cost of care, reflecting staffing ratios, programme costs and operational realities. Second, on top of this base, apply a means-tested subsidies to ensure affordability for families who need them. Service providers, such as the social service agencies, are not naive. If every additional client requires more fundraising, the system becomes unsustainable. Eventually, service providers will withdraw and the Government may have to operate these services directly, which could cost even more. Funding reform must therefore align care complexity, workforce reality and sustainability. Gap two, disability employment resilience in an AI economy.”
“And how do we intend to grow the pie to address this manpower challenge?”
“But the SPED schools are run by a lot of the other professionals as well such as occupational therapists, speech pathologists, psychologists, coaches and so forth. And I ask for MOE, as it always looks at SPED educators, to also focus on this other very important group; because retention is capacity. And the last one is on making sure that the poaching from SPED mainstream schools and sometimes MOE, the Ministry of Health does not recur.”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman, for noticing my hand. A few clarifications. Number one is on the DSA arms race. We know that applications are surging and I hear that there is a lot more interest in this space as well. So, how does the MOE intend to reduce the preparation advantage, increase more authentic school-based nominations and reduce all this portfolio-gaming? The second one is on yet another arms race. I did not raise it in my speech, but it is about the internship arms race. I know of some residents, they are from slightly disadvantaged backgrounds. They shared with me that when it comes to internships, they have very little connections and networks, and they lose out to some of their classmates who sometimes have four or five options, and even have internships stacked upon one another. How do we address that so that they get more equal access? The third one is on the PSLE pilot through-train. I heard that the Minister said that he will consider. So, I was just wondering, is this kind of a "yes", "no" or "maybe" response, because this has been spoken about for quite a long time? So, just checking your views on this. And the last one is on SPED schools for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. Physical capacity is definitely needed, but I think very importantly, and I volunteer in special schools, so, a lot of the constraints is not in the physical capacity. A lot is in the manpower capacity. So, I want to ask MOE on what it will do in the manpower space so that it is not just business as usual. How can we tap on, for example, specialist manpower to address this gap. Number two is, I think the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has mentioned that there is a review of salaries of educators and teacher aids.”
“On the SPED side, much more support had been put in. Capacity will increase from 8,300 in 2024, to 10,000 places by 2030. Demand and complexity continue to rise. First, manpower is the tightest bottleneck. If we build new schools without enlarging the workforce, we create a tug-of-war. SPED competes with mainstream. Mainstream competes with SPED. Both compete with the private sector. We need a deliberate manpower strategy: expand sponsored training pipelines for SPED educators and allied professionals, scale structured mid-career conversion pathways, allow for foreign manpower to supplement the workforce, deploy regional multidisciplinary teams serving classes of schools, pace spread staff competitively, educators, speech pathologies, therapies and coaches. Retention is capacity. Second, we must address the post-SPED cliff. Beyond expansion, we must ask: what should a SPED school of the future look like? It should adopt a lifelong learning model integrating academic foundations with work readiness and vocational exposure, life skills for independent and dignified living, social-emotional growth and community participation and AI tools that actively address the rapidly changing living and working landscape. SPED schools must be launchpads for adulthood, not endpoints. No young person should thrive for years in our SPED schools to face then a drop into uncertainty. That cliff is for ours to level. Curriculum Access for SEN Students”
“Sir, on supporting students with Special Educational Needs (SEN) in our mainstream schools and in special education (SPED) schools, we have made real progress in the space. Big thanks to MOE, partner disability agencies and staff. But the numbers being diagnosed and the demands are increasing and our support models must grow stronger. First, on mainstream schools, from access to consistent quality. Over the past decade, MOE has strengthened in-school capabilities. SEN officers have increased from about 450 in 2017 to about 750 by 2024. Primary schools now run structured programmes, such as School-based Dyslexia Remediation, Circle of Friends peer support, and the TRANsition Support for InTegration (TRANSIT) initiative. These are serious investments. But two areas need attention in the mainstream schools setting. First, inclusion quality remains uneven. Parents still report differences in early identification, teacher confidence and consistency of support across schools. We need a clearer national tiered framework that defines what every classroom teacher must be able to do, what school-based specialists provide and what requires multi-disciplinary intervention including for mental wellness. Support should not depend on which school a child happens to enter. Second, life skills must be intentionally taught. For many SEN students in mainstream settings, academic access alone is not enough. Executive functioning, self-advocacy, emotional regulation, work habits and digital responsibility and so on must be systematically embedded, not treated as optional add-ons. These are foundational for lifelong learning and employability. Not including them bears negative consequences. Next on special schools, expanding the capacity and reimagining their purpose.”
“In an AI-driven world, success will depend less on early sorting and more on adaptability, deep thinking and lifelong learning habits. These cannot be built in a sprint to age 12. What should we do? First, refine DSA so it broadens opportunity rather than amplifies preparation advantage – through structured outreach, authentic school-based nominations, and clearer criteria to reduce portfolio gaming. Second, make AI a national equaliser – guarantee baseline access in schools, teach AI literacy, and shift assessments toward reasoning and authentic application. But this may not be enough. MOE should consider a carefully safeguarded, voluntary 10-year through-train pilot from Primary 1 to Secondary 4. Under such a pilot, standards remain aligned with national expectations, students graduate with recognised qualifications such as the GCE, mobility and transfer options are preserved, and subject-based banding can start at an earlier age and deploy teachers according to the needs of the students using a “flexible class size” model instead of a “universal small class size” model. Not small classes everywhere, but right-sized classes, flexible and fit for purpose. Evaluation should examine academic performance, student well-being, tuition reliance and socio-economic mobility. Scaling should be considered if outcomes are at least as strong, with reduced pressure. Sir, we do not have a weak system. But there is urgency in building an education system ready for a very different future, one centered on lifelong learning, adaptability and strong character. Dismantling the PSLE, DSA and AI-driven arms race is only the beginning of redesigning education for the long race ahead. PSLE”
“Sir, the education arms race in Singapore is real and it now has three fronts. First, the PSLE. MOE's move from T-scores to achievement levels was thoughtful and reduced fine differentiation. But when families still believe that performance at age 12, Primary 6, influences access to certain secondary schools and future pathways, they will still invest more time, more effort and money to secure an advantage. In 2023, households spent $1.8 billion on private tuition. The top 20% spent more than four times what the bottom 20% did. When stakes are concentrated, pressure and spending concentrate. That is the dynamic of an arms race. The second race: Direct School Admissions (DSA). DSA was designed to broaden definitions of success and its intention is right. But admissions rose from about 3,500 in 2019 to about 4,400 in 2023, around 11% of the cohort. Applications have surged with 38,000 in 2023. When DSA becomes another prized gateway, families respond with earlier coaching and curated portfolios. We now risk running two races, an academic race through PSLE and a portfolio race through DSA. Third, the AI acceleration. In an AI-disrupted world, careers will shift multiple times and skill upgrading must be continuous over life. AI tools can now personalise practice and provide instant feedback. But many advanced tools are subscription-based or require strong home support. If unmanaged, AI becomes the new tuition and the arms race becomes digital. 6.30 pm Why does dismantling this arms race matter? Some argue that as long as employers value academic credentials, then competition is inevitable. But labour market norms will not shift overnight. Our education policy therefore must respond now.”
“In a resource-constrained environment, should we more deliberately prioritise SMEs that are willing and able, or potentially able, to scale, to innovate and uplift productivity meaningfully? Can we develop clearer readiness indicators, so that support is more disciplined and catalytic? At the same time, how do we avoid leaving behind firms that require capability-building before they can qualify for deeper transformation support? We have built platforms, provided grants and created segmentation tools. Yet the implementation gap persists. So, I ask: do we need more precise industry segmentation, not just by size or digital maturity, but by structural conditions? Are we investing enough in building internal execution capability and upgrading the capability of intermediaries who advise SMEs? Can we introduce measures that free up leadership bandwidth for strategic upgrading? Are we confronting structural fragility in sectors like F&B, so new entrants can assess their viability more realistically? And most importantly, how do we help SMEs move beyond digital adoption to sustained, measured productivity growth, especially those with intent and potential to compete? In the AI era, survival and superficial adoption are not enough. Transformation must be real. So, how will the Government help bridge this implementation gap, so that our SMEs can truly thrive? Support for Local SMEs”
“Chairman, on helping our SMEs grow and thrive. Singapore is not short of schemes. We have advisory support, such as CTO-as-a-Service; intermediaries like the Singapore Business Federation, SME Centres and ASME; platforms like GoBusiness; the Productivity Solutions Grant and the Enterprise Development Grant, even AI Centres of Excellence. On paper, the ecosystem looks comprehensive. SMEs can be segmented by digital maturity and sector. They can access advice on human resources, marketing, finance and operations. Yet outcomes remain uneven. Many SMEs are still struggling; not just to transform but to stay afloat. From industry conversations, three structural challenges emerge. First, bandwidth. Owners are consumed by rent, manpower, compliance and cashflow issues. Transformation requires time and focus. Many simply do not have that headspace. Second, capability depth. Diagnostics can identify gaps, but implementation requires managers who can redesign workflows, integrate systems, manage change and measure returns. Many SMEs lack this internal execution capability. Third, structural fragility in certain sectors. In F&B especially, margins are thin and volatility is high. Entry barriers remain however relatively low, yet closure rates are high. Many enter without fully appreciating labour intensity, rental volatility and tight margins. Even with grants, a fragile cost base makes transformation daunting. Sir, another perspective is this: not all SMEs are equally positioned to transform at the same pace. Some are willing but lack capability. Some are capable but constrained by structure. Some may not yet be ready.”
“Chairman, let me speak on two areas where MOF can lead meaningful transformation: inclusive procurement and AI-enabled fiscal governance. On inclusive procurement, beyond its current emphases on transparency and quality, MOF can better support SMEs with three refinements. First, faster payments through quicker payment cycles for smaller contracts and milestone-based payments for larger ones, including more regular payments for Progressive Wage Credits. This addresses cash-flow pressures preventing capable SMEs from bidding. Second, smarter contract packaging by avoiding monolithic tenders where feasible. Disaggregating components like cybersecurity or design allows SMEs to compete in their strengths whilst maintaining programme coordination. Third, recognising social value in contracts through a points system similar to weightage in sustainability contracts. Modest weight could reward verifiable contributions like skills transfer, disability employment or SME participation. Hence, differentiating proposals that strengthen our societal ecosystem. On AI-enabled fiscal governance, MOF can harness AI to meet rising transaction volumes and accountability expectations. First, better forecasting using machine learning to analyse economic indicators, demographics and trade trends for more accurate budget forecasts. Second, improved compliance through AI-powered smart forms and real-time compliance checkers, strengthening governance whilst reducing administrative workloads. Third, sharper resource allocation by analysing which programmes deliver greatest public value per dollar. By refining procurement and harnessing AI, we can strengthen enterprises, embed social value recognition and ensure fiscal system robustness.”
“Are there other strategies that the Prime Minister will consider, like easier adoption procedures to have more people adopt, more of us Singaporeans adopting? The second is, in terms of immigration as well, to bring in people who are of the right profile and suitable profile to grow our Singaporean population? So, three clarifications for you, Sir.”
“Thank you, Prime Minister, for a convincing round-up speech. I am seeking three clarifications. Number one is on SMEs. In this age of AI and growth, I asked about how the Government intends to strengthen the intermediaries who are actually advising the SMEs in this age, intermediaries, like the SME Centres, Singapore Business Federation, NTUC, the Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) and the trade associations, for example. From where can these intermediaries tap on resources to advise and to be in a good position to advise as well. That is my first clarification. The second one is on the Prime Minister's comment on no jobless growth. I wrote that down. The Prime Minister said that. No jobless growth. I wanted to hear his thoughts on the prognosis of those Singaporeans who are unlikely to catch up. The vulnerable, for example, like some of the seniors, like persons with disabilities who have higher support needs, for example. They might actually lose jobs in this time and age. So, I wanted to hear his views on those who are likely to lose jobs and actually may not be able to take up or upgrade their skills, in that sense. The third clarification is on TFR. I think somebody mentioned it, but I am very relieved to hear from the Prime Minister that this is not a lost cause and that even if the Budget Statement does not cover it, Minister Indranee will cover that. Hopefully, what Elon Musk has predicted, that Singapore will become extinct, that will not be a reality. But can the Prime Minister share a little bit more about strategies other than producing our own? We know that many young people may not want to get married or even after they get married, some of them prefer pets to children.”
“When SSAs become AI-enabled, the most vulnerable of us benefit. In conclusion Sir, Budget 2026 sets an ambitious direction: AI ecosystems, SkillsFuture strengthening, innovation hubs such as Lorong AI and the future AI Park at one-north. Ambition is necessary, but it is execution that determines whether progress is shared. AI adoption must be deep not cosmetic, worker-centred, inclusive by design, accessible to SMEs and supportive of the vulnerable. If we get this right, Singapore will not merely adopt AI. We will prove that a nation can move fast in this space and still move together. That, is AI adoption without regret, bringing everyone along. Sir, I support the Budget.”
“Enterprise grants should include accessibility compliance requirements. Inclusion cannot rely on goodwill alone. It must be systemically built-in. And finally, move five: on strengthening intermediaries and social service agencies (SSAs). Sir, if AI is to be whole-of-society, then SSAs cannot be left behind. Many SSAs supporting low-income families, seniors, elderly residents and persons with disabilities face rising demand and manpower strain yet they also often lack AI capability: the technical capacity, the budget and the data governance expertise needed for that. Budget 2026 should create an “AI for good fund” to build an “SSA AI Backbone” comprising centralised AI tools for SSAs, shared data governance frameworks, volunteer AI professionals embedded in agencies, a vetted AI solutions marketplace.”
“Where AI threatens junior roles, we must redesign and not remove entry points. Support structured apprenticeships, meaningful internships and supervised AI-assisted roles. Programmes such as Enterprise Singapore’s Global Ready Talent scheme show how structured internships can build capability. But internships and these other schemes must evolve. Young workers should learn to supervise AI systems, validate AI outputs, interpret analytics, exercise judgment beyond machine outputs. AI should become a co-pilot, not a substitute. Protecting the first rung of a job ladder protects mobility. Move four, on building concrete job pathways for seniors and persons with disabilities. Sir, we must move beyond general statements about inclusion or plans or declarations. For seniors, physical AI can reduce strain and extend employability. Robotic lifting aids in logistics, autonomous carts in healthcare, AI-assisted scheduling to reduce cognitive load. Pair this with modular, bite-sized digital training delivered at workplaces, not just classrooms, and wage support during transition for seniors. For persons with disabilities, we should expand supported employment into AI-adjacent roles: AI system monitoring and quality assurance, data labelling and validation with assistive tools, accessibility testing of AI systems, digital customer service roles using adaptive interfaces. And to make this real, NTUC, for example, should intensify outreach to unionised sectors undergoing automation. SG Enable and the National Council of Social Service should develop AI-readiness toolkits specifically for disability-inclusive employers and job clusters. Disability organisations and charities should be funded to train job coaches in AI-augmented workflows.”
“And that requires policy discipline. The discipline to protect workers before displacement happens. Budget 2026 already strengthens wage support, raising the Local Qualifying Salary, enhancing the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme and continuing the Progressive Wage approach. We must now apply similar discipline to AI transition. Some of the solutions lie upstream in education reform and serious mid-career upgrading. I will return to that during the Committee of Supply. But even as we strengthen the pipeline, we must also confront the immediate labour-market transitions already underway. Let me suggest five moves to do this. Move number one, a national early warning and mobility system. Let us shift from reactive retraining to proactive planning. Using job-task analytics and sector data, we should try to identify roles with high automation risk, identify them early, and try to intervene before displacement occurs. This means advance job redesign before automation, training that begins before tasks disappear, clear pathways into adjacent or emerging roles. Transitions are painful when sudden, but they are more manageable when anticipated. So, a national early warning and mobility system. Move number two, make workforce plans mandatory for major AI support. Sir, if a firm receives significant AI incentives or intermediary agency support, there should be a workforce transition roadmap. What tasks will be automated? What human roles remain accountable? Which workers will be redeployed or upgraded? And how will wages be supported during transition? Productivity gains must not come at the expense of worker displacement without a plan. Enterprise transformation and worker transition must be linked. Move three, redesign entry-level pathways.”
“The doomsday scenario is not robots overnight. It is a broken ladder. If entry-level roles shrink, then fewer young people will get their first break. If mid-career workers are benchmarked against software, then wage growth stagnates. And if the gains concentrate among those who own and control AI, while others bear the disruption, then productivity gains will not feel like shared progress. Next, on the vulnerable. Sir, not everyone pivots at the same speed. For seniors, lower-wage workers, persons with disabilities, the risks are sharper. Lower-wage workers often perform routine-intensive tasks, the easiest to automate. Older workers, many of them struggle with rapid digital transitions, especially if training is overly theoretical or classroom-based. Persons with disabilities face a dual risk: one, displacement in routine roles, and exclusion if new systems are not accessible by design. Without deliberate intervention, these groups will fall behind first and inequality will widen. At the same time, of course, we must not jump – I think the Prime Minister always advices me at the lunch table – we must not jump to doomsday conclusions. AI can create more jobs and expand work. Nvidia’s CEO founder Jensen Huang has pointed out that in areas like radiology, AI did not replace doctors, it helped them read scans faster, which meant more patients could be treated and demand actually grew. We see similar effects in other sectors. As AI systems expand, we need engineers, technicians and operators to build and run data centres. As companies automate, they also need people to maintain robotics systems and supervise AI tools. The lesson is clear: AI can remove routine tasks and expand human capacity, but only if we design AI adoption intentionally.”
“Empower the multipliers and impact scales across the ecosystem. The goal is not to push every SME into complex AI systems overnight. The goal is disciplined, intentional transformation. If we get this right, AI becomes a renewal engine for SMEs. If we get it wrong, then we create a two-speed economy, not because help was absent but because execution lacked precision. Execution determines survival and survival determines jobs. Next, on jobs. If SMEs must transform to survive, then workers must also transform to survive, to remain relevant. And we know that not all workers begin from the same starting point. Sir, at the heart of this AI transition is one deeply human question: what happens to our people’s jobs? Because technology may move at digital speed. But families move at human speed. And the disruption we face is not one-dimensional. It is two-front. On the first front: operational and blue-collar roles, warehousing, logistics, F&B kitchens, security, cleaning, basic inspection work. AI-driven optimisation and robotics are already reducing repetitive tasks. Scheduling is automated, we know. Inventory is predicted. Machines inspect defect sometimes faster, in fact a lot of times faster than humans. The risk is not only displacement, it is also intensification – tighter monitoring, algorithmic targets, more precarious contracts. That is on the first front, the blue-collar jobs. On the second front: white-collar and cognitive work. GenAI already now drafts reports, writes speeches, prepares marketing copies and plans, business plans, summarises legal documents, produces financial models and writes code. Entry-level roles – internships, junior analysts, first-rung executive jobs – are increasingly augmented or partially absorbed.”
“But firms should not fail because support was too generic, too fragmented or too distant from operational reality. Government must enable. SMEs must step up. Transformation requires effort on both sides. AI adoption demands leadership focus, workflow discipline and real investment. It is difficult, but standing still is harder. That is why broad encouragement and broad grants waiting to be taken up are no longer enough. We need precision support, not broad measures. Let me propose three moves for a start. Move one, a national SME AI readiness scan. Many SMEs do not know where they stand, so let us introduce a credible, simple national diagnostic tool that classifies firms into foundational, emerging or advanced stages of AI-readiness. Support must be tailored to readiness. Foundational firms need help in cleaning up data, fixing workflows. Advanced firms need integration and scaling support. So let us stop this one-size-fit-all grants. Start targeted transformation pathways. Move two, Government-funded AI coaches for the SMEs. SMEs do not need some more webinars or seminars. They need embedded, time-bound advisors who can help to clean and structure data, redesign workflows, implement AI properly, measure productivity gains. Hands-on implementation support, not just funding, will separate the serious adopters from superficial users. Move three, strengthen the intermediaries. Many SMEs rely on trusted intermediaries: the Singapore Business Federation, NTUC, SME Centres, Enterprise Singapore, trade associations and chambers, academia with practical experiences. If we expect these intermediaries to guide thousands of firms through AI transformation, then we must also equip them with deeper technical capabilities, diagnostic tools and specialist talent and funding.”
“And the SMEs are already under strain we know. They quoted – we had many talks – our GPC for Finance and GPC for Trade and Industry – with our resource panel, the Singapore Business Federation, PAP Public Policy Forum and many business associations. We know that the SMEs are already under strain: rising costs, manpower shortages, thin margins, rapid technological shifts and intensifying regional competition. AI is not arriving gently for them. It is arriving on top of these pressures. These sentiments are common from the conversations we heard. But let us be clear. For many SMEs, and I am not talking about those who are in that quadrant, where they are unwilling and unable, but for many of the rest, the issue is not willingness. Surveys consistently show SMEs want to adopt AI. But they adopt AI when three things are clear: "What works for my sector and me? Who can help me implement? And how do I pay for it?" AI, as we know, is not plug-and-play. It does require clean data, disciplined processes, systems integration and leadership commitment. It requires job redesign, worker re-training. Without these foundations, adoption becomes cosmetic – chatbots at the front desk, dashboards in the office – but no real productivity gain. If that happens, we will digitise inefficiency. And if we do not intervene properly, the risk is not just slower adoption. The risk is structural divergence. Large firms with capital and technical depth will accelerate. Smaller firms will struggle. Productivity gaps will widen and wage growth will stagnate for many. Some SMEs will exit but let us be honest: not every SME exit is a failure of policy. In a high-cost, AI-driven economy, some business models will no longer be viable.”
“Beyond manufacturing, AI-powered machines are entering everyday services – cooking and serving food, packing goods, moving inventory, assisting nurses, guiding seniors, even conducting therapeutic and counselling functions. This is automation with cognition. Across Japan, South Korea, China, Denmark, Germany and many others, such systems are being deployed at scale in logistics, healthcare, food services and manufacturing – precisely the sectors where many of our Singapore SMEs operate and where many of our older and lower-wage workers – Singaporeans – earn their living. That is why this shift is more consequential than past mechanisation. Singapore is a high-cost, labour-scarce economy. Automation was already necessary. But AI-driven automation accelerates change because it does not just replace muscle – it begins to learn and replicate judgment. So, the question is not whether AI reshapes Singapore. The question is whether we will shape this transformation deliberately – upgrading our firms, our companies, our businesses and uplifting our workers – or risk allowing intelligent systems to outpace our preparedness. Let me turn to our SMEs. Sir, if we are serious about bringing everyone along, then SMEs cannot be an afterthought. They make up 99% of our enterprises and employ 70% of our workforce. They are the economy. Budget 2026 places AI at the centre of our strategy. But on the ground, many business owners are still unsure what this means for survival – not just growth. The numbers are sobering. In 2024, only 14.5% of SMEs adopted AI – up from 4.2% the year before. Now, that is progress, but still fewer than one in six. Meanwhile, adoption amongst the larger firms surged from 44% to 62.5%. Some firms are sprinting. Many are walking. Too many have not even started.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support Budget 2026. What stood out most to me in Budget 2026 is this: AI is no longer peripheral to Singapore's plans. It is central to our economic strategy and our future competitiveness. AI is here and now. It is reshaping industries, redefining work and influencing the resilience of nations. Singapore must move decisively, but we must also move wisely. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Today, I wish to speak on AI adoption without regret, about bringing everyone along, about AI's profound implications – especially for our SMEs, our workers, particularly those who are vulnerable and ultimately, our social compact. Because AI is not just a technology story. It is a societal one. If we are not careful, AI transformation could become a story of the few who benefit, while the many may absorb the disruption. Our task, therefore, is clear. How do we pursue AI adoption without regret and bring everyone along? AI is reshaping the real economy, not just the digital one. By the real economy, I mean the industries that make, move and deliver goods and services, where most Singaporeans work. This is not just another wave of automation. Singapore has automated before – in factories, ports and back offices. But this time is different. Machines are no longer just executing instructions. They are sensing, they are learning, they are adapting and making decisions. AI is becoming embodied. We are already seeing AI-driven "lights-out" or what they call dark factories operating 24/7 with minimal human presence. These systems optimise production in real time, detect faults, predict breakdowns and adjust workflows autonomously. In some sectors, robots are even assembling other robots.”
“I thank the Minister of State for her assurance, assuring the House that there are indeed alternative identification methods available for those who are unable to use facial recognition. Just a couple of supplementary questions. Number one, are these measures systemic and applicable for all fully digital or not fully digital banks? Number two, are these available alternatives communicated? So that all the affected parties will know and they will not have to resort to raising the question in Forum letters, or even in this House.”
“Speaker, a good city is not measured only by how lively it is at night, but by how liveable it remains at home. As Singapore continues to intensify and mix uses more closely, our governance tools must evolve accordingly. I look forward to the Government’s favourable consideration of the proposals that I have put up to protect our residents’ well-being while sustaining vibrant, responsible commercial activity in the neighbourhood. [Applause.]”
“My last proposal is related to enforcement – firm, but proportionate enforcement. Proposal 6: a transparent, graduated response. Enforcement should focus on repeated and substantiated non-compliance, not isolated lapses by responsible operators. A transparent, graduated framework would allow consequences to escalate only when problems persist – from tighter conditions or shorter renewal periods, to restrictions on hours or business activities and as a last resort, licence suspension or revocation. This approach provides certainty for businesses, protects well-run operators from unfair competition and allows agencies to focus on the small minority that repeatedly undermine neighbourhood liveability. In conclusion, Speaker, at its heart, this Adjournment Motion is not about opposing commerce, nor resisting vibrancy. Shops, cafés, services bring convenience, they bring jobs, they bring life to our estates. Many business operators invest their savings, employ local workers and genuinely want to be good neighbours. We should support, not penalise, these responsible businesses. And we should also not condone residents who are unreasonable. The residents that I and many of my colleagues here speak up for today are not calling for blanket bans or heavy-handed crackdowns. They are asking for something far more modest: clear rules, fair processes, early intervention and proportionate enforcement, so that liveability is not eroded. Done well, the six proposals I suggested in this Adjournment Motion can benefit responsible operators by creating predictability, levelling the playing field and ensuring that those who cut corners do not impose hidden costs on our residents or on their better-run business counterparts nearby.”
“Proposal 3: closing legislative or regulatory gaps. Existing legislation should be reviewed to ensure that all commercial activities that affect residential amenity are subject to basic, enforceable standards. This is not about over-regulation, but about ensuring that regulatory light-touch does not become a blind spot. I just read in the papers, I am so glad that the Ministry of Home Affairs is currently looking into these gaps. Second, on governance, managing day-to-day realities on the ground. Proposal 4: good neighbour agreements. For higher-impact uses, operators could enter into a simple good neighbour agreement setting out expectations on noise, waste management, crowd control, solicitation behaviour and responsiveness to complaints. This provides a practical way to resolve issues early, without immediately resorting to enforcement. Good behaviour should also be recognised. At the community level, some of us already give out Good Neighbour Awards to residents. We should consider extending similar recognition to commercial neighbours who consistently demonstrate responsible behaviour and explore benefits such as greater flexibility in outdoor dining or longer renewal extensions for those with strong compliance records. This reinforces the message that good behaviour is rewarded, not just bad behaviour punished. Proposal 5: better coordination across agencies. Oversight today can be fragmented and siloed. A shared single case view across planning, licensing, environmental health, estate management and public order agencies would allow patterns to be seen earlier, rather than each issue being handled in reaction, in isolation. This improves fairness, reduces duplication and helps agencies act with consistency and institutional memory.”
“First, prevention, getting things right early. Proposal 1: clearer use classes. For better zoning granularity, planning categories can be refined to better distinguish between low-impact neighbourhood businesses and higher-impact uses such as late-night food and beverage, massage establishments, bars and karaoke outlets. Factors such as operating hours, alcohol service, music amplification, likelihood of late-night congregation and proximity to homes or schools should be taken into account. This gives businesses clear signals upfront and allows planning decisions to better reflect lived reality at the block or precinct level, rather than broad zoning assumptions. Proposal 2: early, structured consultation. For higher-impact uses in residential areas, a simple, structured consultation at the pre-approval stage can help surface risks early. Many of us Members of Parliament have had to assist innocent business operators who unknowingly either signed tenancy agreements assuming licences were transferable or automatic; or they have committed substantial investments before being informed that their proposed use was already under heightened scrutiny or under policy review. A clearly scoped consultation process, similar in nature, in principle to the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority's Long-Term Visit Pass consultation framework or checklist helps to clarify regulatory expectations upfront, reduce costly missteps for businesses, minimise future disputes with residents and lower the likelihood of enforcement, appeals, or litigation downstream. Early engagement is pro-business and pro-resident. It improves investment certainty and protects livelihoods for businesses, while also reducing distress for our residents and enforcement burdens for agencies.”
“While zoning controls exist, they tend to operate at a broad, area-based level. They may not adequately account for hyper-local conditions such as the over-concentration of certain commercial activities within a single block or single precinct. It is unclear whether licensing or landlord agencies consistently factor in business clustering effects when such approvals are granted. What may be acceptable in isolation can, when concentrated, significantly erode residential amenities and community well-being. Reason 4: consequences that do not deter poor behaviour. Finally, for some lucrative errant operators, fines or summons are simply treated as a cost of doing business. When penalties do not meaningfully affect business viability or impose operational consequences, there is little incentive for genuine behavioural or structural change. Without credible deterrence, enforcement risks becoming reactive and repetitive, penalising the same offenders without delivering lasting relief to our residents. I want to speak next about a balanced framework of prevention, governance and enforcement. Sir, unless more strategic and intentional measures are put in place, enforcement will continue to be reactive. It is a cat-and-mouse exercise that frustrates residents, burdens agencies and creates uncertainty for businesses. I therefore urge the Government to consider a more integrated framework of prevention, governance, enforcement – one intended to be practical and predictable, not punitive. It gives clarity to businesses upfront, supports early resolution between residents and business operators on the ground, and reserves enforcement for persistent non-compliance. Let me now outline a proposed suite of measures under prevention, governance and enforcement.”
“However, despite existing frameworks and good intentions on all sides, some disamenities persist. From conversations with residents, businesses and enforcement agencies, I see four underlying reasons why current safeguards fall short. Reason 1: legislative and regulatory gaps. Take massage establishments as one example. Under the Massage Establishments Exemption Order 2018, premises that provide massage services in full public view are exempted from licensing and any regulatory oversight. They are only required to notify the licensing officer of their name and address before commencing operations. Today, the number of such exempted establishments can run up to 2,000. Unlike fully licensed operators, they are not subject to the same operational conditions or compliance requirements. In practice, this regulatory light-touch has allowed a proliferation of outlets that contribute to neighbourhood disamenities, without adequate safeguards for residents or meaningful accountability. Reason 2: siloed and fragmented enforcement. Enforcement responsibilities currently are often divided across agencies: licensing authorities for food, entertainment or massage; building management and estate maintenance; environmental health for noise or odour; and urban planning bodies. The result is that no single agency has sight of the full neighbourhood impact. Issues are addressed sometimes in isolation rather than holistically. This fragmentation not only leads to gaps in enforcement outcomes but also risks inefficient use of public resources as agencies respond piecemeal to symptoms rather than root causes. Crucially, the cumulative neighbourhood impact is often insufficiently assessed. Reason 3: insufficient zoning granularity.”
“During my house visits, for example in the Crawford estate, families and seniors shared that visible solicitation activities outside some massage establishments made walking home very uncomfortable. Not just the wives, but also the husbands felt uncomfortable. While some of these premises have since vacated, my residents at Crawford remain anxious about what types of businesses may subsequently replace or occupy these spaces. Many Members will also be familiar with the reported situation at Tanjong Pagar Complex under the hon Member Mr Foo Cexiang. This is a neighbourhood which is frequented by families for enrichment classes and daily necessities. It was reported that recent enforcement actions resulted in the closure of 10 massage and spa establishments offering illicit services, but only after an extended period of uncertainty and disruption for our residents and nearby businesses alike. Member Ms Cassandra Lee also had appealed recently for assistance to counter vice activities in licensed massage establishments. Challenges such as congestion and conflict. Finally, increased commercial footfall can lead to congestion and conflicts in shared spaces. Queues, waste disposal issues and competition for parking between residents and patrons can strain hygiene standards and create friction in otherwise peaceful neighbourhoods. When existing safeguards prove insufficient. I want to stress that these challenges that I have mentioned would have been far worse without the dedication of frontline agencies and responsible businesses who make genuine efforts to comply and be good neighbours. Many of these business operators also provide essential services and are even part of our Community Development Council Voucher Scheme.”
“At the same time, he also recognised that a good city must support livelihoods and enterprise, not suppress them. Singapore’s residential neighbourhoods are meant to be safe and family-friendly environments, homes for our people, while at the same time remaining economically active and inclusive. Hope and reality. Many residents of ours embrace the vision of mixed-use neighbourhoods with shops, cafés and services such as preschools, Active Ageing Centers at their doorsteps. They hope for convenience, vibrancy and a more connected community. Indeed, when done well, such commercial activity adds value, creates jobs and strengthens neighbourhood life. However, when intensity, scale or behaviour crosses certain thresholds, tensions can arise, not because this mixed-use model is flawed, but because the safeguards have not kept pace with lived realities. Residents, of course, are not homogeneous. Some are more sensitive to disturbance than others and can make unreasonable demands. But many other residents recognise that well-run businesses add vibrancy and convenience to residential estates. However, when these commercial activities intensify without adequate planning or safeguards, even these residents experience persistent day-to-day challenges. Challenges such as noise and smell, continuous noise from exhaust fans, amplified music, late-night operations as well as cooking odours from kitchen vents, can travel into common residential areas and upper-floor homes, affecting residents’ rest and living comfort. Challenges such as safety. Residents have also raised concerns about how certain ground-floor businesses operate in close proximity to homes.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the topic of protecting resident well-being amidst commercial activity. It is a matter close to residents and I believe some of my fellow Parliamentarians in this House. This Adjournment Motion is not not in opposition to commerce, enterprise or progress. Nor is it an attempt to pit residents against businesses. Rather, it seeks to highlight: one, the situations faced by residents arising from commercial activities in their neighbourhoods; and two, how these disamenities may be addressed in a way that preserves both liveability for residents and also sustainability for businesses, especially for responsible business operators who play by the rules. I would like to first commend the agencies on the ground: the Housing and Development Board (HDB), the Singapore Police Force (SPF) – especially the Neighbourhood Police Posts and the Licensing Unit, Director Jarrod Pereira and their teams – the National Environment Agency, the Land Transport Authority, the Singapore Land Authority, Town Councils as well as partners such as the People’s Association staff and grassroots volunteers, who work tirelessly to manage disamenities on the ground. Their efforts often involve difficult trade-offs, difficult situations; and I thank them for navigating these with professionalism and care. I also wish to pay tribute to the late Dr Liu Thai Ker, who passed away on 18 January 2026 this year. Often described as the father of urban planning in Singapore, Dr Liu wisely reminded us that cities exist first and foremost to serve the people who live in them, not merely for aesthetics or for economic efficiency. Dr Liu emphasised quality of life, dignity and community well-being as the ultimate goals of urban planning.”
“Yes. Also, their banking constraints as well. The banks are not very consistent in supporting these families. So, my supplementary question would be this: would MSF take a lead in setting up a small, maybe inter-agency work group, even including volunteers, to look into these problems that are really faced by the deputies who are family members and try to coordinate the efforts to assist them. And then, make the information available for them.”
“I thank the Minister of State for his response. On the ground, we have heard recurring feedback from families and these are not just families with persons with disabilities, but also with seniors who, for some reason, have lost some of their capacities. My Parliamentary Question arises from all these recurring feedback. There were two sets of issues normally cited. Despite what the Minister of State mentioned that OPG has been doing. The first set is around the difficulties when they apply for deputyship. Usually, many of these families have limited access to knowledge and guidance, they do not even know where to go. Despite a simplified process, it is actually not so simple. Most applicants, especially those who are not so educated or not so proficient in English, do require hands-on guidance. And without it, the process is quite daunting. Also, for deputyship, unlike the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA), it is more costly and administratively burdensome as well. There are also difficulties after deputyship orders are made. Like the Minister of State mentioned, the annual report; it is not so easy for people to even fill up. Some of my volunteers, including lawyers who help them, find it is not so straightforward for those post deputyship burdens —”
“Thank you to the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. My first supplementary question is, may I ask the Ministry to provide the source of data to say that the rental hike is comparable to the central district, and if the central district, which is really big, is really the appropriate segment to compare those rentals with? And also, to specify where the data says that a lot of these rental hikes are lower than the GDP growth? My second supplementary question is, with Minister Faishal Ibrahim and myself, we work quite closely in, for example, the Kampong Gelam area. We know that the rental hikes are not an issue that is easily managed and that there are different views and interests of the different stakeholder groups, like the tenants, the landlords, the public and the heritage groups. Can the Ministry advise how and when it will coordinate with the relevant agencies, like the Ministry of National Development (MND), the Ministry of Trade and Industry, the National Arts Council, NHB and URA, for instance, one, to identify what qualifies as a heritage business; two, to list the different options available and being considered to balance the interests of the different stakeholder groups? Landlords, of course, want higher rates, tenants want as low as possible, and the heritage folks want the nature of heritage to be preserved. So, questions for you, Sir.”
“How will all these gaps be surfaced such that they will be addressed in the sector, in a coordinated and effective and timely manner? In conclusion, Sir, this Bill marks an important step forward in how Singapore supports and governs its social service sector. It strengthens coordination, builds capability and also enables a more data-informed system – one that seeks to leave fewer people behind in our society, in our country. But at the same time, as a framework Bill, much will depend on how the Council's powers are exercised through subsequent regulations and implementation. Its true test will, therefore, lie not in the passage of the Bill today, but in how it is applied in practice after today. As we strengthen NCSS and the system around it, we must also preserve the diversity, the humanity and the community-driven spirit innovation that give the sector its strength. So, in conclusion, with appreciation for the dedicated work of NCSS, Government partners, MSF and all the SSAs, and with a call for continued partnership and mutual trust, I do support the Bill. Thank you very much for doing this.”
“Beyond relying on nominated Board members and occasional meetings of members, there should be, in NCSS, a systemic and structured platform to sense, identify, prioritise, plan, coordinate and resource the critical gaps with the other agencies, across the sector for both existing and emerging gaps. And with that, I have three questions for the Minister, for clarification. The first is to do with governance and innovation. How will the Bill be implemented to ensure that stronger governance and funding relationships do not inadvertently encourage compliance-driven behaviour, stifle innovation or add unnecessary layers of bureaucracy within the social service sector? My second question is about proportionate compliance and reporting. How will compliance and reporting requirements be calibrated to the size, to the capacity and maturity of the SSAs in this sector, so that both large and small SSAs are not overburdened by administrative costs that detract from frontline service delivery? My third clarification question is this: it has to do with managing overlaps and identifying system gaps. What system and what structured platform will be put in place to sense, to identify, to prioritise, to plan, to coordinate and to resource critical gaps, both existing and emerging, across the sector? How will NCSS and existing agencies work together to ensure that the most significant and urgent service gaps, such as that in adult disability, the impact of technology, artificial intelligence (AI), AI-driven robots, which really kept some of us worried because these technologies will take away some of the jobs that we are trying to create for the disabled, for the elderly.”
“The key question, therefore, is, how will NCSS know, early and hopefully, accurately, where these urgent gaps lie, particularly when needs are localised, emergent or poorly captured by existing reporting frameworks? And how will it know who to trust, in character and competence to work with? So, a system steward, like NCSS, must, therefore, be designed not only to coordinate, but to listen deeply, sense early and respond proportionately. And next, on clarifying NCSS' role within the broader care ecosystem. Sir, the four concerns I raise lead naturally to questions about role clarity. Singapore's care ecosystem today is complex. It is organised along different population and service domains. For instance, those of us, as MPs, would know, seniors' services are largely coordinated by the Agency for Integrated Care under MOH; then, disability services are supported by SG Enable and MSF's Disability Office; family services and social service offices fall under MSF; and then, recently, I just heard, volunteer mobilisation, now, it is not just by NCSS, but it is also previously by National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre (NVPC) and the Prime Minister also just instructed the CDCs to look at increasing volunteers. With this Bill strengthening the Council's functions in coordination, capability development, data use and system stewardship, there needs to be clarity on how these roles and agencies intersect. I think there will be overlaps, but the overlaps with existing lead agencies must be addressed in practice, especially in areas, such as needs assessment, service planning, capability development and data reporting.”
“We started only with 41 students, and thanks to the Ministry of Education, NCSS and SG Enable, it is now a large and popular school serving thousands. Happee Hearts Movement, started by Dr Chen Shi Lin, started modestly and is still that way, but nimble. So is Helping Joy – I think they are featured in the newspapers these days – started by Steven Goh, to help clear hoarding homes and thankfully, also a partner of Central Singapore CDC. Both Dr Chen and Mr Goh are nominees for the Singaporean of the Year Award. If agencies, such as NCSS' expanded statutory powers, unintentionally privilege scale, maturity or compliance over proximity and trust, we risk losing such grassroots energy, and cultural and linguistic diversity, and high-touch relational approaches. And missing contributors, such as Dr Chen and Mr Goh. Over time, if we are not careful, agencies may default to policy-safe, standardised interventions, rather than develop innovative models to respond to emerging needs. And therefore, a healthy social service ecosystem requires not only strong institutions, but also space for diversity, for dissent and experimentation; without compromising quality and due diligence. Concern number four: system sensing, how NCSS will identify emerging gaps. A stronger mandate and better data capabilities do not automatically translate into better system intelligence. The social service landscape spans multiple vulnerable groups with overlapping, evolving and often invisible needs. Many critical gaps surface first through frontline practitioners, caregivers, volunteers and even small niche organisations – long before they appear in formal data sets.”
“The Bill's strengthened governance and data obligations may increase reporting, audits and evaluation requirements. Today, funders and donors rightly expect outputs and outcomes; not to mention impact, the latest buzzword. Impact, which is the latest ambitious expectation. Some of these measures are often difficult to attribute, to isolate and to track meaningfully, especially in complex social settings. Accountability is necessary, but it is not cost-free. From experience, the charities I serve already incur significant expenditures on internal audits and external audits, procurement systems and compliance processes – costs that involve not just financial outlays, but also substantial manpower and administrative effort. Many SSAs are already operating under severe manpower constraints, high caseloads, burnout and staff turnover. Compounding this, many of these compliance costs must be supported through donor funds, and we know that many donors are often reluctant to fund overheads and want to fund only direct service costs. It is, therefore, important that in strengthening governance, we recognise the true cost of accountability and compliance, and avoid adding unnecessary administrative strain that will divert energy away from frontline service delivery. This caution applies not only to administrators in the social service sector, but also across the health, ageing and special education domains. Concern three: safeguarding diversity and innovation. Many of Singapore's most impactful social interventions began as small, ground-up initiatives. Pathlight School, which I co-founded, started that way. Started by volunteers, professionals who are professionals and also parents.”
“As we strengthen the system, we must not build this safety net with the chains that bind the very hands that weave it. It is to these considerations that I now turn. Sir, I would like to next raise four areas of concern and some of the implementation risk. Concern number one: risk of over-centralisation. A stronger NCSS can improve coherence coordination, but if it is not carefully calibrated, it may also lead to unintended over-centralisation of decision-making, resources and influence. This will not bode well for the sector. For larger SSAs, closer alignment to NCSS frameworks may result in a greater emphasis on compliance over innovation, increased risk aversion and also growing bureaucratic overheads. I recall an instance where, sometime back, in submitting a tender for a facility for one of our charities, my team and I were required to comply with the norms and specifications that were decades old. We were a bit stuck because non-compliance would render our tender ineligible, yet compliance would constrain our ability to innovate or pilot new models. This illustrates how rigid requirements and compliance can sometimes discourage innovation and progress. For smaller SSAs, stronger NCSS stewardship can bring benefits, such as access to shared services and professionalisation; and the Sun Ray Scheme, that many spoke about. However, uniform standards often assume an administrative scale that sometimes, smaller agencies simply do not have. This may result in disproportionate compliance burdens, pressure to conform to standardised templates and reduced responsiveness to local community realities. The risk, therefore, is over-uniformity due to over-centralisation. Concern number two: rising compliance and administrative burdens.”
“This clarity matters. It provides legitimacy for NCSS to act across boundaries and also provides a stronger governance basis for it to steward the sector responsibly and strategically. So, that is good. Key positive two: stronger coordination and long-term system stewardship. The Bill also enables NCSS to better address cross-cutting needs that spans agencies and life stages, and to reduce fragmentation within the sector. Over time, stronger coordination can help minimise duplication, close service gaps and create clearer and more navigable service pathways, especially for individuals and families who require support from multiple touchpoints. In this regard, the Bill can move the sector towards a more integrated and user-centered system. The third key positive: strengthened capability development and data-informed practice. Sir, the Bill further strengthens NCSS' mandate in workforce and organisational capability development. This includes training and professional development, development of specialised skills, leadership and talent pipelines. The Bill also clarifies the Council's role in collecting, analysing and using sector-wide data for planning, evaluation and research, building on improved digital and data capabilities. Taken together, these provisions support a more capable, evidence-informed sector – one that is better equipped to adapt, to learn and to respond to evolving social needs in a sustainable way, and I applaud these directions and recognise the value that they bring to a more complex and demanding social service environment. But the very strengthening of Council's statutory role also raises important questions of balance, boundaries and execution.”
“The NCSS (Amendment) Bill formally expands NCSS' statutory functions as a system steward of the social service sector. I support this direction. Our social service ecosystem today is far more complex than when the principal Act was first enacted three decades ago. The landscape is shaped by an ageing population, rising mental health needs, greater diversity amongst vulnerable groups, post-school cliff effects faced by the disabled adults, technological impact and higher expectations for accountability and outcomes. In such an environment, a stronger and better-coordinated sector is not an option, it is a necessity. And this Bill recognises that reality, and for that, I welcome the Bill. However, as NCSS assumes a more formalised system-steward developer role, it becomes even more important that institutional strengthening does not dilute the partnership-driven ethos and culture that NCSS is known for. It is from this perspective that I will highlight both the strengths of the Bill and several areas that merit careful attention. First, on three key positives of this Bill. One, clearer mandate and stronger governance. Sir, clause 6 of the Bill replaces sections 6 to 12 of the Act and introduces a new section 11 that sets out an updated set of objectives and functions of the Council. These reflect and strengthen the role of the Council as sector developer for the social service sector. It gives statutory clarity to the Council's role as a strategic sector developer, beyond that of a convenor or a grant administrator. The Bill expressly provides for functions such as advising Government, coordinating social service provision, setting standards, building sector capability, mobilising resources and supporting the implementation of national social policy.”
“Speaker, Sir, I rise to state my support for the Bill. I declare I am an active volunteer in the disability sector for more than 25 years and I currently chair two large autism charities, both are NCSS members, and I help to supervise services from early intervention to special schools to services for adults. In my job as Mayor of Central District Community Development Council (CDC), my team and I also partner many from the people, public and private sectors. We work with agencies and donors to support families in need, especially those living in rental flats. We also work with hundreds of organisations, including corporates and foundations, to raise disability awareness and dignity, through example, The Purple Parade movement and The Purple Symphony orchestra. And NCSS is one of our key partners. Over the years, I have seen first-hand the good work of the NCSS and its partnership-oriented approach across different generations of leadership – Ms Anita Fam, Mr Hsieh Fu Hua, Ms Ang Bee Lian, Ms Tan Li San – and many more. What has historically distinguished NCSS is just the policies it advanced or the funds that it administered, but its ethos as a membership-based organisation. NCSS had for years worked with agencies, then known as voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) and now SSAs, they work with them, rather than over them. NCSS recognised that effective social service delivery depends not just on structures and systems and power and hierarchy, but also on trust: trust of character and competence, professional judgement, morale and sustained relationships on the ground. This context matters, because the Bill before us marks a clear institutional evolution.”
“The journey from experiencing discrimination to securing redress is a marathon. The system, while improved, still places a significant onus on the individual to navigate complex processes against a typically well-resourced opponent. The ultimate success of this Bill for Singapore's most vulnerable workers will therefore depend not just on the letter of the law, but on the ecosystem that supports it. This includes robust funding for truly accessible legal aid and support such as the Appropriate Adult scheme, community outreach programmes to educate workers on their rights and the importance of documentation, and ongoing training for mediators and even judges to identify and protect against power imbalances. Without these complementary measures, the Bill risks being a well-intentioned channel that only the most resilient and resourceful vulnerable employees can successfully pass through. Notwithstanding this and looking forward to MOM's consideration of my four proposals, I support the Bill. 6.45 pm”