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 3 of 22.
“Sir, I rise today in support of the Workplace Legislation Bill. I commend the Government and all stakeholders for their efforts in bringing this Bill to fruition. After more than three years of research, public consultation and thoughtful revision, it addresses five protected characteristics: nationality, age, sex/marital status/pregnancy status/caregiving responsibilities, race/religion/language and disability/mental health conditions. Together, these cover 95% of workplace complaints received. The Workplace Fairness Bill is a significant milestone in promoting fairness and inclusivity in Singapore's employment landscape. I will focus my remarks, today, on the impact of this Bill on PwDs, drawing on my experience serving this community. I will also use the terms "disabled", "special needs", "differently abled" interchangeably. Let me declare the different roles that I play in the disability space. I am an activist involved in developing the Enabling Masterplan and initiatives, such as The Purple Parade, The Purple Symphony, and social enterprises, creating jobs for the disabled. I also head disability charities, such as the Autism Resource Centre, which provides job placement services. I am also the parent of a special needs adult. I, therefore, will speak from different perspectives, hoping to balance the interests of all stakeholders. First, let me talk about the progress of Singapore's disability landscape Sir, Singapore has made remarkable progress in disability inclusion over the past two decades, thanks to former Prime Minister and current Prime Minister and the Cabinets as well. The focus on children with special needs in their early and school years have been transformative over the last two decades.”
“I thank the Minister of State for the reply. I have mixed feelings when I received the news about the increase in preschool placements. On one hand, of course, I am very happy about the additional places. On the other hand, I am really worried about the manpower situation, especially if it is seen as a competition for talents or manpower and those who have deeper pockets will have the advantage, compared to others who have not. So, my question is, at national level, who is MSF working with, beyond NCSS, because there are also other sectors that require such manpower. And also, is there an overall manpower kind of demand and supply masterplan which reflect on strategies to update the skills to grow the whole pie, or even to change immigration policies and so forth, so that there is less competition, while everybody is able to grow the pie, to meet national needs?”
“Hawking is also perceived to be a job that reaps modest income. These root causes are not easy to solve and will take more than financial resources and incentives. Are all hawkers and hawker centres equal? Which ones should be managed by the State and which ones by Town Councils or social enterprises? If the Government were to subsidise the costs of operating hawking businesses, especially in housing estates with predominantly Singapore residents, then can or should they reserve the right to at least control the rental and ensure budget meals for Singaporeans? "Budget meals" is not a dirty term. Actually, it is quite useful. These are some of the questions that we have to and need to be reckoned with, as we review how to support and promote hawker culture. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, hawker culture is a cornerstone of our heritage. The root issues of declining margins and the reluctance of younger Singaporeans to enter this industry are not easy to resolve and need to be recognised. So, let us work together – Government agencies, Town Councils, social enterprises, hawkers and citizens – to ensure that this heritage remains accessible and affordable for generations to come. With this, I support the Motion as amended by hon Member Edward Chia.”
“This resource gap is particularly evident in our Central District hawker centres, such as People's Park Complex, Albert Centre and Chinatown Complex, which serve not only local residents but also a significant number of tourists. These prominent centres managed by Town Councils require substantial maintenance to uphold the standards expected of national landmarks, yet the Town Councils often lack the necessary funds and specialised management expertise. So, in light of these challenges, I propose that NEA categorise or tier the types of hawker centres and even coffee shops and allocate its resources and expertise accordingly. I do not think that NEA should take over the running of all hawker centres, but I do urge NEA to assume responsibility for managing and maintaining key national iconic hawker centres, such as Albert Centre, People's Park and Chinatown Complex, that serve mostly non-residents versus residents. By doing so, NEA can apply its specialised expertise and substantial resources to ensure that these centres continue to reflect the high standards associated with Singapore's hawker culture. Alternatively, if taking over these iconic hawker centres is too daunting for now and actually needs further review, then I urge NEA to consider providing a resource package or support framework for these specific centres, acknowledging the unique demands placed on them as tourist hotspots and cultural icons. Next, on the need to look beyond financial incentives to sustain and grow Singapore's hawker culture. In a survey quoted in a 2024 Lee Kwan Yew School of Public Policy article, "Cooking or Cooked: The Future of Singapore's Hawker Culture", 87% of respondents stated they do not want to be hawkers, quoting long working hours and lack of interest.”
“A unique feature in the safety net, the CDC Voucher scheme has the dual purpose of supporting both Singaporeans and the heartland businesses, especially hawkers. This support is still ongoing. I thank PSP and PAP MPs alike for agreeing that the CDC Vouchers are, indeed, useful. Next, on the importance of infrastructure improvements. Infrastructure improvements are another critical element of preserving hawker culture. Over the years, NEA has initiated several programmes to modernise and maintain hawker centres. NEA-managed hawker centres have seen substantial upgrades in facilities, cleanliness and ventilation, ensuring that patrons can enjoy a pleasant dining experience. These physical improvements are not merely cosmetic. They are essential to the continuity of hawker culture. A clean, safe and well-ventilated environment encourages patrons to return and also helps retain hawkers to stay on in their trade and jobs. Let me touch a bit about NEA-managed and Town-Council-managed hawker centres. Besides social enterprises which manage hawker centres, the Town Councils also manage hawker centres. NEA, with its resources and expertise, has been able to uphold high operational standards in the NEA-managed hawker centres, whereas the Town Councils face some limitations, due to their smaller budgets and also fewer specialised resources, as they were primarily set up to serve residential estates. Town Councils primarily rely on S&CCs from stallholders, which are usually insufficient to cover the extensive maintenance costs required to match NEA standards.”
“Hawker culture, recognised by UNESCO as part of our intangible cultural heritage, is not just about food. It is about a way of life that brings together Singaporeans from all walks of life, around the humble dining table of our hawker centres. First, on Singapore's support-hawker measures. In recent years, we have the Singapore Government, including MSE and NEA, stepping up significantly to support and preserve hawker culture. During the COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, the Government implemented several measures to protect hawkers. Rental and table-cleaning waivers and salary subsidies through the Jobs Support Scheme were granted to ease the financial strain during these uncertain times. CDC Vouchers were also introduced to encourage locals to support their neighbourhood hawkers. These initiatives were designed to help hawkers sustain their livelihoods through challenging times, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Post-COVID-19, the support continues. Policies aimed to sustain the hawking industry were introduced. Some have been fairly successful and some not so, but I know the Government is closely looking at these. These include the revised rent control measures, a suite of hawker training programmes to increase the replacement rate of hawkers, the Hawkers' Productivity Grant and the Hawkers Go Digital Programme; and of course, the ongoing CDC Vouchers. In fact, the budget for CDC Vouchers, originally intended only for lower-income households, was substantially increased after the Mayors appealed and worked with the Ministry of Finance to extend them to every Singaporean household. So, big thanks to the Ministers for Finance – then, Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat and now, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong.”
“Speaker, I want to declare, first, that I am a volunteer actively helping job centres in inclusive employment. I want to present another angle. I am quite excited about the work that is going on in inclusive employment in the public sector. Just to name a few: the National Library Board, VITAL, GovTech, the Central Provident Fund Board, Ministry of Social and Family Development, Ministry of Health Holdings, Singapore General Hospital and also the transport sector. Actually, I think that they have done quite a bit in inclusive hiring, sometimes not allowing us in the charity sector to give up even. The average rate does not reflect some of the very good work that is done. There are also critical success factors that I hope the Minister will agree with me that we can learn from. The first is top leadership engagement and support, middle management focus, job design, equipping the colleagues and encouraging those on the ground. So, quite a bit of critical success factors. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister if he would consider forming even a small task force for those who are actually passionate about this in the public sector to suss out all the critical success factors and those good in this area. And, in fact, position the public sector strongly as a leader in inclusive employment. There is a lot of room there and I am very encouraged by the hiring so far.”
“And lastly, I just want to, again, congratulate all our remarkable athletes who represented Singapore at the 2024 Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games. You have made us so proud, not only with your victories but inspired, like what Minister Edwin Tong has said, your passion, your determination and the grit you have shown in every step of the way. A special congratulations and big thanks, too, to the incredible families, coaches, professionals who form the backbone of support. Your unwavering belief in our athletes made all the difference. As we look to the future, let us dream even bigger. May the Singapore sports fraternity continue to grow from strength to strength. May you forge new paths of success, not just on the world stage but in every school, every neighbourhood, every community across our nation. May we build on this powerful legacy and create a future where sports is not just a field of competition but a celebration of Singapore's spirit of excellence, inclusivity and unity. Let the world see what a great country we are and what we are further capable of. So, Majulah Singapura, thank you very much and congratulations. [Applause.]”
“One area that we can improve on is by increasing investment in sports science and technology to help athletes maximise their performance through improved training methodologies and performance analytics. And also mentorship of athletes. Surely, younger athletes can be also connected with experienced mentors and even former Olympians to provide guidance, provide motivation and practical advice to them. And finally, a very important area or topic. As I speak to past Olympian athletes, whether able-bodied or Paralympians, many of them have mentioned the area of post-career support for athletes. The transition from a sports career to life after competition can be daunting for many athletes, particularly for those who have devoted their youth to training. For our medallists and sportsmen, securing stable post-sports career should be a priority. So, programmes that focus on educational opportunities, career guidance and even entrepreneurship for retired athletes should be bolstered to ensure that they thrive beyond their sporting competition years, beyond the sports arena. And we can actually take reference from the very robust pre-retirement development plans that MINDEF is conducting for its officers. I studied it and I hear very good things about it and the sports fraternity can take a leaf from MINDEF on this area as well. So, various areas in post-career support, in calling for all to ensure that parity for cash awards is realised, for more investments in sports science and technology, for ensuring greater school participation and developing on sports talents. These are the few areas that I would like MCCY to consider further.”
“In lifelong learning, we need funds in job support for persons with disabilities who can take on paid jobs. For those who cannot work or cannot take on paid jobs for care services, there is so much needed. Caregiving services as well; in housing; in healthcare; in transport; criminal justice; and, for example, beefing up the Police force who are supporting our possible criminals with special needs; in mental wellness; in Healthier SG for all. These are all services and areas that we need a lot more support and the needs are many. I urge the Government to look into these needs and I know that MSF and MCCY are looking into this and to allocate more resources too. Therefore, on the topic of equalising or the parity of awards, I do call on the Government and the rest of Singapore to join me also in calling upon and, also Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, to call upon the current and potential private sponsors to please also, support us to equalise these cash awards for both para athletes and also able-bodied athletes, so that more resources, including by the Government, can be also spread out to the other very critical and urgent needs. Together, we can send a powerful and progressive message that Singapore is truly inclusive and we offer equal opportunities to all regardless of background. So, those are my views on parity of awards. I know it is important in today's topic context to fight for parity. But I also want to express that in the larger context, there are also many, many needs and I do want the Government to look at these needs as well and to spend as prudently as possible to ensure that more needs for more for the disabled can be looked into. The next is on sports science and technology.”
“More structured opportunities, both within the schools and out there, with the grassroots and the community, are needed. By fostering early sports participation, we can instill healthy habits that extend into adulthood, enriching the overall quality of life, reducing healthcare concerns and costs and potentially producing more elite athletes. Next, on equalising cash rewards – it seems to be a popular topic today. Hot off the press, Paralympians Yip Pin Xiu and Jeralyn Tan have been rewarded this week for their outstanding achievements at the Paris Games. Pin Xiu received $1.5 million per gold medal and Jeralyn got $300,000 for her bronze medal. For context, there are two distinct cash award schemes, the MAP for Olympians and the AAA for Paralympians. Both programmes have different origins, different scopes and administration managed by separate NGOs. These awards are privately-funded as the Government focuses public funds on upstream investments for all athletes and the Government has encouraged private sponsors to support these medallists' rewards. And thanks to sponsors like DBS and Tote Board, AAA was, in recent years, enhanced from $200,000 to $500,000 for a Paralympic gold medal. So, on this topic of parity of cash awards for both abled and disabled sports champions, I think parity is important, but I also support the Government's approach to the prudent use of public funds for sports recognition. This is because I know, for so many years, how my fellow disability advocates and I have been asking the Government and sponsors and foundations to give us more grants, more funds, for more services for the disabled, especially for the adult years from 21 to, say, 85.”
“Thanks to MCCY and the team, the introduction of more robust support structures for our Paralympic athletes, including dedicated training programmes and specialised coaching, has allowed them to compete at the highest level. Disability sports have seen greater attention, greater funding, creating more opportunities for athletes with disabilities to develop their talent. It is, therefore, welcome news that the new home of Team Singapore, I mentioned just now, will have a dedicated training centre for para sports. I am also very pleased that a review of the 2016 DSMP, I think overdue, now led by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua, is now underway to further improve sports access for persons with disabilities, young and old, and I look forward to the Master Plans addressing ground aspirations, such as a bigger network of sports coaches, facilities and programmes also for adults with disabilities to participate and even excel in sports. Next, on what more can be done. While we have achieved much, I think there are still areas where we need to do a little bit more. In broadening sports participation in schools and mainstream schools, although we have offered more opportunities, we should offer more opportunities for students of all skills level, not only those who are proficient. We must also facilitate further the integration of sports into the curriculum at special schools to ensure that children with disabilities, especially those with higher support needs, are encouraged to lead healthy, active lives from a young age. Many of the special education (SPED) school graduates still do not. Not enough of them have adopted healthy lifestyles when they exit school. This has to be intentional and has to go beyond a few lessons a week.”
“Next, let me now share a few areas I got feedback from past Olympians, their families and a few other athletes on where we feel Singapore has done well in developing sports talent and also areas that we can do even better. What Singapore has done well in developing sports talent. The Singapore sports team has grown tremendously, especially in recent years and we have made significant progress in developing sports talent, both in mainstream and disability sports. One is in increased investments in infrastructure. The establishment of the Singapore Sports Hub and other regional training centres has provided our athletes with the platforms they need to participate and then to excel. The announcement by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong and Minister Edwin Tong on the new home of Team Singapore in the Kallang Alive precinct presents an exciting vision. So, thank you. The second thing we have done well, is also for support for our athlete development. Through initiatives, like spex, many of my colleagues have mentioned before, spexProgramme and so forth. We are seeing greater financial and developmental support for our athletes. SpexScholarships, in particular, have helped many of our athletes focus on their sports full-time while also pursuing their education or career. The third is in youth development pathways. Singapore has also made great strides in identifying and nurturing young talent through schools, clubs and national age group competitions. Programmes, such as the NYSI, have played a crucial role in grooming the next generation of sporting stars by providing specialised training and education support for our student athletes. The fourth is in inclusive sports development. One of the areas where Singapore has improved tremendously is the promotion of inclusive sports.”
“None of this success would be possible without the strong support system behind each athlete. So, to the families, thank you for releasing and supporting the athletes to take this road less travelled. I salute you and you are as special as the athletes. To the coaches and the leaders and the staff of the NSAs, the Disability Sports Council, the sports institutes who tirelessly train and guide our athletes, ensuring that they perform at their best, your contributions have been invaluable. So, thank you all, members of this important support structure, for being the wind below the wings of our athletes. I also want to express my gratitude to the Singapore Government as well and I want to give credit where it is due. Over the years, the Government has increased its investment in sports, not just in terms of infrastructure and funding, but also in terms of trying to build a more inclusive sporting culture. Our para athletes' achievements have shown us that sports is not just a domain of the so-called able-bodied. The Government's inclusive sports investment has enabled both mainstream and Paralympic athletes to receive the support that they need to succeed on the world stage. Indeed, when I asked Pin Xiu what had been a game-changer for her swimming career, she mentioned the support she got from the support system, from being able to have access to the right coach and a high-quality sports science team. The success we are witnessing today is a direct result of this intentional upstream investment and we look forward to seeing even more growth in the years to come.”
“Sir, I stand in full support of MCCY Minister Edwin Tong's Parliamentary Motion. It gives me great joy to come together to celebrate the incredible achievements of Team Singapore at the 2024 Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games. The 33 athletes who represented our nation have demonstrated the spirit of resilience, resolve and excellence, carrying our Singapore flag high on the world state. Thank you so much and congratulations to Team Singapore. On the Paralympic front, we witnessed the legendary Yip Pin Xiu, our champion swimmer, who made history by clinching two gold medals this time. With these victories, Pin Xiu now holds a staggering total of seven Paralympic gold medals and a silver, cementing her status as Singapore's most decorated Paralympian. Pin Xiu, serves with me in the Purple Parade movement, which sees thousands of Singaporeans coming together each year to show their support for the cause of inclusion and for the disability community. We sat in many meetings together and what impresses me most is her humility, authenticity and her willingness to constantly learn, not just in swimming, but in other things, in leadership issues and advocacy and so forth. I know Pin Xiu will go far as a woman of substance in life. Congratulations too, to Ms Jeralyn Tan, who made her debut in boccia and for securing Singapore's first ever medal at the Paralympics. And, of course, Olympic bronze medallist young kitefoiler, the charming Mr Max Maeder, the youngest Singaporean to ever win an Olympic medal. But beyond the medals, it is so important that we recognise every athlete who participated in the Games, whether they reached the podium or not. They, on the road to Paris, they demonstrated the triumph of the human spirit, all 33 of you. Thank you.”
“I need to declare that I am a volunteer helping two special schools. It is true that burnout, physical risks are quite common amongst the SPED schools. And, in fact, a number of the staff are female; so, where physical risk is involved, they are, indeed, at risk. So, we need to make sure that we protect them. My second point is, the Journeys of Excellence Package that was mentioned by the Minister, covers mostly SPED teachers. But within the SPED schools setting, there are speech pathologists, occupational therapists, coaches and psychologists. Many of them work in the exact same setting. In fact, they handle even higher risk or more challenging cases. So, we must include them in whatever we come up with, in terms of the excellence for SPED schools. My third point is also with the increase in parental leave, maternity leave and so forth, which we must support at the national level, we have also increased the workload of many of the SPED staff, because it is not easy to just create or develop a relief pool who can just move into the class and replace the usual staff. So, there are issues which are of concern in the SPED school setting. I know it is important and I thank the Minister for saying that you have formed a group to look into these, but can this group who looks into these issues include the other non-teachers, the other staff as well. And also, look at the best in the world, best in class resources and hear from the staff themselves as to what might be useful when developing these packages of help.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I want to thank the Minister for the courage to look into changing the GEP. It has been a sacred cow for many years in our MOE system. It is also aligned with the Minister's vision, which I fully support, of making education pathways to be more student-centric and to bring out the best in each student. My question to the Minister is: why not go all the way out to let students pick the subjects in which they can have most passion and ability for, at the highest level that they can pursue and attain? Why is there still a need for labelling a programme as for gifted or not gifted, especially if we have the concept that giftedness could be in academics, sports, arts, leadership and so forth? Why not go all the way and scrap all these labels and let each perform to his or her best, and study to his or her best? I am just concerned that if we continue to now decentralise the GEP to every school for the top 10%, then, would it be possible that it would get back to the old situation where there is a so-called elite class, and families and students will chase that class, and there is this Express stream possibility and the rest? My question to the Minister is: why not go all the way, according to his vision that many support?”
“— co-ops and social enterprises cannot remain forever just because they are there or they started at a certain time. Social enterprises are difficult to run because they have to meet both financial and social bottom lines. It is even costlier to keep them around just for sentimental reasons. Will the Minister of State or the Minister, through this episode, review and provide better guidelines to educate co-ops, social enterprises, even Singaporeans at large, on the best practices on when these entities like social enterprises or co-ops should enter a market, when they should exit, especially when the landscape has changed? And also, if it is truly an essential sector, how would the Government then come in to support like in the case of preschools and so forth with anchor operator schemes? I just want to know what we learned from this episode.”
“Thank you to the Minister of State and Minister for the responses. I do not know whom I should direct this to, so my question is to either one of you. I help to run charities and also social enterprises as an active volunteer. I agree with Minister of State Alvin's quote by Dr Goh Keng Swee that —”
“I would like to thank the Agency for Integrated Care as well as the CPF for being very inclusive in their services to make it accessible for our non-digitally savvy people. I just have one micro-question. From the replies to our Meet-the-People Session appeals, I noticed that some agencies, in fact, quite a number, actually reply to our residents asking them when we have already told the agencies that these folks are not digitally savvy and they need help, personal help. The residents actually get replies from agencies, sometimes templated, asking them to go to an online portal and apply again. Then we have to scramble to find volunteers who then have to get Singpass information from our residents. So, I thought MCI could be a facilitator to ensure that this does not happen so often because it creates a lot of frustrations on the ground.”
“And also, the hot button issues, which are really the financial subsidies for essential services, such as daily activity centres for those with moderate to severe disabilities. I think we really need to consider a hybrid model of funding just like what we did many years ago, I think under Minister Vivian for MSF, where there is a universal core base and then you tap on, you add on, top up with means-tested subsidies so that at least the fundamental core expenses for such models can be covered.”
“Thank you Minister, Minister of State and Senior Parliamentary Secretary for your comprehensive and caring responses. I have two supplementary questions, mostly for Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua. 3.45 pm The first one has to do with ComLink+. I hear an almost picture-perfect narrative of what has happened. But I know and am sure the Senior Parliamentary Secretary also goes through quite a lot of this every day, that it is not picture-perfect and there are lots of challenges actually serving our families. And I just want to reiterate what I asked in my cut. How did the pilot go? What were the challenges? And how do we intend to solve this? And how do the rest of us, including the Government, plan to work at it together? That is my first supplementary question. The second one has to do with the EMP for persons with disabilities. Again, I want to ask from my cut. First is that it is great and I am very thankful for the report that was made. A lot of these reports pertain to the outputs, activities, and that is a really good start as well. But we need to link it to outputs. At the same time, we also want to make sure that it is not outdated. Eight-year master plans are like really major things. Even in this time and age, a lot of things, shelf lives are very short. So, I really think that eight-year master plans in the social service sector definitely have to be updated. So, can I ask for a structured official review each year so that we can ensure that these plans are updated? Also include what I shared about the need to include hot topics like inclusive insurance, criminal justice, review and strengthen the appropriate adult scheme and also to include ADHD and dyslexia, such neurodiverse conditions into our master plan.”
“There is also a pressing need to explore a facility or programme ensuring that persons with disabilities who are incarcerated are placed in appropriate physical facilities and suitable rehab programmes. For my last point today, on funding models for essential services. The funding model for these services, for example, day activity centres and residential homes with moderate or severe disabilities, should be re-evaluated. We should seriously look into a hybrid funding model comprising a universal base funding and means-tested funding quantum to address the core issue of insufficient funding for these essential services. I seek MSF's considered and favourable responses to the four points I made.”
“You see, the Singapore Government, for instance, has rolled out Healthier SG, Community Care Apartments, new Build-To-Order (BTO) towns, Active Ageing Centres, SkillsFuture upgrades, many, many exciting developments that I feel strongly can include the disability community. I therefore earnestly urge MSF to consciously conduct a formal yearly review, not just report, to update EMP 2030 so that it stays relevant and tap on these important, exciting developments. Next, on unaddressed gaps. Certain critical areas not covered in EMP 2030 need attention, including inclusive insurance, criminal justice system for our special needs community, and the inclusion of mental health and neurodiversity conditions such as ADHD and dyslexia, all needed for a comprehensive support system for PwDs. On inclusive insurance, I am deeply appreciative of the strong support from the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Life Insurance Association. They have collaborated with charities such as the Autism Resource Centre to develop a guide to raise awareness of disabilities and enhance transparency of insurance risk assessment approach towards health insurance undertaking. I thank advocates like Wesley Low, his Member of Parliament Chong Kee Hiong and others for their feedback in this space. There are still significant challenges that need further study. For example, insurance companies often hesitate to cover individuals with disabilities who disclose their medication use, failing to recognise that those who follow their prescribed medication regimens are likely to maintain or improve their health status. On criminal justice, I repeat my call for a review by MSF and the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) of the appropriate adult scheme to enhance police investigations.”
“Sir, in the Parliamentary Adjournment Motion I filed in 2020, I advocated some key changes to better the lives of persons with disabilities, or PwDs. I asked for changes to address significant gaps in provisions for living, learning and working, to alter societal perceptions of PwDs, to improve the policy-making and service structure for better collaboration amongst PwDs, their families and disability agencies and the Government, and to include the voices of PwDs. I am grateful that many of these calls have been heeded. For instance, updates on the Enabling Masterplan 2030, or EMP 2030, are accessible now on the MSF website though they require navigating through quite a few pages before one can find them. So, I call upon MSF to proactively push out this information so that affected stakeholders are assured of progress. I also want to propose four areas for further improvement today. First, on reporting beyond activities. Current EMP 2030 reports are primarily activity-based. They should also link these outputs to outcomes. This approach would then offer insights into the health conditions of PwDs, for example, their readiness when they leave formal schooling, caregiver confidence in obtaining information and assistance, and the level of public awareness and acceptance of PwDs. Although challenging to connect outputs to outcomes and, like Mr Xie Yao Quan said, to have even impact, I think that is even more difficult, it is crucial for the EMP 2030 implementation team to begin this analysis to support further informed contributions by other stakeholders. Second, on relevance of the plan. With rapid changes in society and technology, the eight-year EMP 2030 will become obsolete, outdated; not totally, but quite a bit will be outdated.”
“I seek an update from MSF now regarding: one, the progress, including the number of families served and the impact of the ComLink+ pilot to date; two, lessons learned from the pilot, including challenges and the resources required; three, strategies to address the issue of multiple points of contact so the family coach can be more effective; and four, measures to ensure that volunteers recruited to assist ComLink families are suitable, reliable and committed and do not just walk in and out of the lives of these families.”
“Sir, I commend MSF's efforts to support families living in public rental flats with young children through ComLink+. As Mayor of Central, I am privileged to serve these families with some excellent ComLink SSOs and Family Service Centre officers, especially in the Jalan Besar and Ang Mo Kio towns. ComLink+, piloted and now to be scaled, provides for family coaches and also financial incentives for families who actively uplift themselves in these four areas: preschool education, employment, financial stability and saving for home ownership. However, my first-hand experience with assisting challenged families reveals complexities beyond what is initially apparent. For example, it is not always easy to secure a preferred location for a family of eight living in a 2-room flat. Timely school attendance then becomes a struggle when a single bathroom must accommodate the entire family in the mornings. For example, a sole breadwinner relying on cash-based, flexible employment as a platform worker will find difficulties in foregoing his job to pursue higher education for a better future job. In addition, despite MSF's efforts, there are still many well-meaning donors and volunteers who are unaware of or prefer to do their own thing, leading to numerous uncoordinated touch points; conflicting advice or support; service overlaps and hindering a family's ability to follow a coherent uplift plan.”
“I request an update from MOE on the progress of PSGs over the years, the role of the Community and Parents in Support of Schools (COMPASS) advisory panel and strategies for harnessing parents' energy to strengthen our education system as a whole. Partner Parents to Develop our Students”
“Sir, decades of research underscore the significant impact of parental involvement in education, yielding benefits for both students and schools. Evidence also suggests that students of engaged parents are more likely to do better, exhibit better social skills and adapt well to school. Studies found a positive correlation between family involvement and student success, regardless of the family's socioeconomic status. I commend MOE and neighbourhood schools for fostering Parent Support Groups (PSGs). An overview of their achievements reveals that PSGs in Singapore have shown remarkable progress, enhancing the educational environment through various initiatives. My study of the landscape also shows that the level of PSG participation and contribution varies across schools. Additionally, I notice that many parents are still seized with worries over the high-stakes examinations, such as PSLE and GCEs, and direct school admissions as to what they perceived as better schools and also pressing issues, such as their children's mental health. Parents, I believe, can be play a more significant and impactful role. MOE has the opportunity to devise a strategic plan for deeper collaboration with parents, fostering a culture that values learning beyond grades, growth beyond grades, supports good mental health and emphasises character development, all important mantras recited by the Minister for Education himself. MOE can draw inspiration from the organisational structures of multi-level networks in the business sector and also the cell group frameworks and resource support found in faith-based communities. This may help to enhance the cascading of critical information and resources more effectively.”
“To ignore the "cliff effect" of learners with disabilities or SEN would be to create a larger pool of Singaporeans relying on state welfare and who might be leading sub-optimal lives at adulthood. So, Sir, while MOE, SG Enable and their learning partners have made commendable efforts to support recent school graduates, these initiatives are insufficient to ensure lifelong learning for all. Current learning efforts often appear fragmented and constrained by the scope and budgets of each Ministry, making it challenging to discern a unified vision or ecosystem where these efforts synergise. 11.30 am As a leader in education and with the Minister championing lifelong learning for all Singaporeans, MOE is positioned to spearhead this domain. There is a pressing need for MOE to commission a comprehensive study to map the current landscape for lifelong learning for all, analyse disability profiles and assess learning needs. This would pave the way for a more robust vision and the development of a more strategic, cohesive Lifelong Learning Plan for All. Innovative, cost-effective learning solutions should be explored, for instance, rather than merely reducing fees for SPED schools, which are, of course, welcomed, could we also direct or add some grants to support learning into adulthood in MOE schools and beyond? In summary, I urge MOE to refine its strategy for lifelong learning to include all Singaporeans, ensuring no one is left behind. I urge MOE to take its place and lead in developing a more inclusive and comprehensive learning ecosystem for all Singaporeans, regardless of ability and background. Enabling ITE Graduates”
“Chairman, I commend MOE's efforts for its dedication to lifelong learning in Budget 2024, focusing on younger ITE graduates and mid-career Singaporeans. I seek MOE's response to what I raised in my Budget speech on the challenges these groups face, such as opportunity costs or income loss, and also ensuring positive job outcomes from further education. I am also concerned about those who are outside these groups, such as the non-ITE graduates and non-mid-career Singaporeans who are in low-skilled jobs, including some gig jobs. How will MOE urge them to take up training and opportunities in emerging sectors, like the digital, care and green economies? Many Singaporeans aspire for further education beyond diplomas, including Master's degrees, for example, in fields like sustainability. They want to take a second bite of the cherry of tertiary level studies. Given these high costs though, how will MOE support these ambitions? In addition, I seek MOE's inputs on whether the investment in certifiable diplomas means a move away from MOE's vision of a more eclectic mix of pathways to lifelong learning. What about promoting more bite-sized, modular and skills-based certificates of competency, instead of going only for diplomas and, possibly later, degrees and other ambitions? Next, I would like to continue to speak up for the lifelong learning needs of PwDs. The SkillsFuture course landscape offers a vibrant array of over 20,000 courses for adult learners, now further enriched by the SkillsFuture Level-Up initiatives and so forth. However, this vibrant and optimistic lifelong learning scenario does not extend to school graduates and adults with special educational needs (SEN). This is regardless of whether they graduate from SPED schools or mainstream schools.”
“Calls have been made for better equipping of teachers, SEN officers and parents through more skilling workshops, cluster-based parent support groups, communities of practice and to extend the SEN fund to postgraduate programmes for these students. I request the MOE to: one, provide updated data on the number of students with SEN, the support structure and SEN support staff strength at all education levels – primary school, secondary, junior college, ITE and other IHL levels; second, for MOE to share insights into the challenges it is facing in this space; and lastly, to share how it might partner key disability training groups, such as Dyslexia Association of Singapore, Unlocking ADHD, SPAS, Autism Resource Centre, Rainbow Centre and others in the Forward SG spirit to build a shared future together for this community.”
“Sir, Singapore has made great strides in its support for students with SEN, thanks to Government and citizen support. However, there is a need to further strengthen the educational support for these students. For students with physical and sensory disabilities, such as the blind, the deaf and those hard of hearing, there is little excuse to not do good by and for them – given the well-established best practices available worldwide. Today, I will focus on the learning support needed by students, now commonly identified as neurodiverse. I thank experts from Unlocking ADHD, Dyslexia Association of Singapore and charities under the Autism Network of Singapore for their insights. Neurodiversity is an umbrella term used to describe a wide range of differences in the way one thinks and processes information. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, dyslexia, dyspraxia and dyscalculia are some common forms of neurodiversity. Neurodiverse students often struggle with traditional education systems that fail to meet their unique learning and social needs. They may be at higher risk of being victimised in schools by bullies. Those who are from lower-income families often get diagnosed and receive intervention much later, leading to increased vulnerability. However, with appropriate training and support, neurodiverse students can offer valuable talents and perspectives in education and work settings. Improvements have been made in MOE schools over the past two decades, with the introduction of SEN offices, trained school teachers, learning support programmes and resource packages and a special education fund for tertiary-level students. Nonetheless, there are still gaps.”
“Chairman, the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East are grave reminders of the need for a strong defence of especially small nation states like Singapore. 11.45 am The SAF was created from scratch in 1965, as a result of the need to build our own security capability. We are blessed that political leaders like Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his team, including Dr Goh Keng Swee, had the foresight to build a strong SAF, bolstered by a robust conscription system. This, in turn, is made possible by the willingness and strong support of Singaporeans who saw this national need. Across generations since then, Singaporeans have played an important part in making personal sacrifices for the larger good of defending our nation. As the threats we face become increasingly complex in wars that are fought not only in the physical space but also in cyberspace, Singaporeans' commitment to a strong defence is now more important than ever. The commitment and support of Singaporeans are really needed. Can MINDEF provide an update on its plans to raise community awareness about the importance of NS and of a strong SAF? In light of our evolving threat environment, can we re-imagine NS to go beyond its current form, scope and method? For instance, are there avenues for women to serve in roles that are suitable for them and be recognised for their contributions?”
“Chairman, many officers who join the Public Service are driven by the higher purpose of doing good, wanting to serve and make a difference to Singapore. Public officers can do good both through their, or during their work, or outside of work, fostering a culture of civic and engagement and social responsibility. To this end, Minister Chan Chun Sing had announced last year that the Public Service is launching the Public Service for Good movement from July 2023. The movement calls for public officers to get involved in new ways to do good for Singaporeans, beyond their day jobs. Such a movement is great. It helps foster volunteerism amongst public officers and also improves their understanding of ground issues. In fact, if properly matched, their voluntary services will enrich their beneficiaries with valuable manpower and skills. I have personally had the opportunity to serve with several senior public officers like Permanent Secretary Teo Zsin Woon and Deputy Secretary Poon Hon Yuen in the disability and the seniors space in initiatives beyond their day jobs. Recently, I also heard that public officers across the Service signed up as befrienders to seniors who live alone in Marine Parade. So, there are many good things happening but not much is known. I therefore would like to ask the Minister for updates on the progress of the Public Service For Good movement since its launch, and what more can be done to match more public officers to the needs on the ground.”
“Yes, Speaker. I would like to also support Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat's "glass half full" perspective. We might actually be a victim of our own success. The SkillsFuture Credit take-up or adoption rate must not be seen as the only indicator of learning. Because of the big push for lifelong learning, I think, during that time and even now, there are many free courses that are implemented. For example, I know that many IHLs – NUS, for example – have given a lot of free CET courses that do not require the use of SkillsFuture credits, in a sense. When the CDCs implemented the CDC Vouchers scheme, we had the whole pool of IMDA Digital Ambassadors who went all out to teach our merchants and our seniors, for example, how to use the digital vouchers. And it came free! It did not require the use of SkillsFuture credits. At the same time, I think, because what NTUC does – the free trainings, the training plans and so on – those courses are sponsored and paid for by the companies. While we know that we can use more of the SkillsFuture credits, that must not be the only indicator, because there are lots of free programmes that did not require the use of these credits. But do not let this go away. We have needs for that. I think there is more to do. But I just want to say that, let us not get too hung up on the adoption of the SkillsFuture Credit, because there are indeed, many courses that are free for now.”
“And I look forward to the Government double-clicking on what I have shared on these five items, so that we can build a shared future together. And I also look forward, of course, to its considered responses in this Budget season. In conclusion, Sir, Budget 2024 is not merely a financial plan. It is a blueprint for a compassionate, inclusive and resilient society. There are some brilliant programmes that ought to be further scrutinised to ensure their well-intentioned goals are achieved. Social development costs are rising in terms of dollars and proportion. Only with a vibrant ecosystem can each one play their role to the best and bring to reality the spirit of ForwardSG and Budget 2024. Budget 2024 calls upon each one of us – the Government, Government officials, corporate leaders, philanthropists, social service agencies, citizens, residents, all of us – to contribute towards a shared future. Notwithstanding my inputs, I strongly support the Budget.”
“These include healthcare, lifelong education, care facilities for adults which Member Dennis Tan has mentioned also, and I raised many times in the House here and outside, for persons with disabilities and their families, especially the adult ones, and also support social enterprises that lead to job creations for the vulnerable, such as our neuro-diversed, disabled and lower-educated Singaporeans. While I appreciate that tax exemptions will now be offered for overseas donations, I urge for local investments to be given priority and granted more attractive tax incentives over overseas donations. Fifth, empowering social enterprises. Instead of relying only on donations and grants, charities as the Government's partners should be encouraged to fish rather than being fed in the long term. Social enterprises play a critical role in addressing societal challenges through business solutions. But social enterprises are some of the most difficult businesses to run, having to achieve both financial and social output bottom lines. Supporting these organisations by prioritising them in procurement processes, offering set-up assistance and providing more tax exemptions and grants can amplify their impact, especially for those that are run by charities. The money goes into the charity and not into any individual's pockets. So, this approach will not only foster social innovation but also contribute to the economy in a meaningful way. Public procurement policies that favour social enterprises can create a more inclusive economy and drive social value creation. Sir, I have proposed five ways by which the Government can be more sensitive and appreciated in its aspiration to build a shared future with stakeholders in the area of social development.”
“For instance, enabling IPCs to access Government procurement networks such as the GeBiz or Demand Aggregated vendors; this could significantly reduce operational burdens for charities. For instance, having good senior public servants from the Public Service for Good movement started by Minister Chan Chun Sing to sit down with key sector leaders and help set reasonable standards and install cost-effective back-end functions – this is one way of moving forward for a shared future. Next, on supporting manpower needs in this non-profit charity sector, the Government can play a pivotal role by being sensitive to and supportive of the workforce dedicated to its non-profit partners. The manpower challenges faced by organisations, for example, like Dover Hospice, which I just visited, where healthcare staff, despite their experience, face tenure limitations; and partner homes, nursing homes, residential homes, which see staff leaving for other sectors, for example, the public sector, due to more attractive connect plans or compensation packages. All these underscore the need for a more supportive and sensitive framework by the Government, together, working as partners. Fourth, in tiered matching and tax exemptions. The Government should implemented tiered matching for donations and offer more attractive tax exemptions for contributions to essential under-resourced social sectors. Essential and emerging needs should be carefully identified and receive more support.”
“But let me just propose some ways by which our Government can take a better lead in ensuring the building of a shared future together, especially in the non-profit charity sector, where I actively volunteer. I need to declare. This is a sector that is full of heart but is fairly fragmented. First, the Government can play a crucial and more helpful role in facilitating this ecosystem to ensure more informed decision-making and impactful outcomes. In recent years, substantial resources have been allocated to governance of the partners, which is vital of course – audits, governance and so forth. However, there needs to be a deeper understanding among both donors and recipients about the landscape – identifying the key essential services, causes, beneficiary groups, key gaps and expectations, as well as clarifying the Government's participation in these gaps and how others can contribute effectively. For example, major donors in Singapore, such as Ngee Ann Kongsi and various foundations, could be better supported to invest in the essential areas sustainably. Second, support for back-end functions. The back-end of any effective social service ecosystem lies in its operational capabilities. Currently, many social service agencies and charities face challenges due to fragmented support structures in governance, procurement, risk management and internal controls. Not their fault; it is just that they are operating with very limited resources. They are not the Government. They cannot afford to pay for what one Member called “bureaucratic complexity”. So, operating with limited resources, these charities and partners often find it very difficult to establish systems that meet Government operating and audit standards. Improving support in these areas therefore is crucial.”
“Whatever it is, the concern over the sustainability of the current funding model for our ever-rising national expenditures should not be underrated and underestimated – and that is my second point. Finally, the need to foster a more robust and cohesive ecosystem of partnership to make the Budget theme of “Building our shared future together” a tangible reality. Deputy Prime Minister Wong’s clarion call through Forward Singapore and through Budget 2024 to “build a shared future together” is an important call to action for every sector of society. Already, Singapore is working with partners in areas such as community hospitals, hospices included, special education and other social services. I refer to hon MP Dennis Tan's lament about the adults with disabilities. And I just want to share that all of us have a role as well. In my Kampong Glam division, for example, we have tested and piloted in the last two years with the People’s Association (PA) grassroots and CaringSG, a special programme that is called "Purple Hearts". It is a special needs families' network, where more than 20 volunteers from the ground, led by some of our grassroot leaders and me. We regularly visited, befriended, tried to find out the needs and then referred and directed the needs of these 200 families to the different agencies, some of them in Government and some are non-government. And almost two years now. I am very happy to share with Mr Dennis Tan and also other MPs, if they are interested, to at least make this happen in their area. Already, Singapore is working with a lot of partners in this space.”
“Next, I would like to touch on the worrying trend of rising national expenditures, especially in what is categorised as "social development costs". More than 50% of the total Budget allocation is dedicated to social development. Receiving the largest shares are health, about 17% or about $19 billion; education at 13% or about $15 billion; and national development at 8.1% or $9 billion. This investment in social development reflects Government's priorities and commitment to improving the quality of life for all Singaporeans. Yet as we increase spending in these vital areas, we must also consider innovative ways to sustain this investment. Our Singapore society is not accustomed to higher personal and corporate income taxes for various reasons. And this is unlike countries such as Australia and the Nordic countries, where high levels of citizen welfare are funded by tax regimes with high tax rates. So, one innovative way that the PAP Government has used is to tap on the National Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) to fund expenditure, which in the last seven Budgets from FY2018 to now, has been increasingly relied upon. How sustainable this funding model is remains to be seen. There must constantly be found ways to pay for the ever-increasing expenditure. Some people I have spoken to call for an even more resources, for example, to be channeled to GIC and Temasek Holdings for them to invest, so that the NIRC base can be enlarged. The two investors have, over the years, delivered decent medium- and longer-term returns. And others call for more public-private-people partnerships for more innovative and flexible funding.”
“It is unclear to me how many are eligible for these targeted diploma courses and whether the potential opportunity costs of not working will deter them, and if they will receive adequate career guidance to ensure alignment with their strengths and job market needs? The same questions also apply to the mid-career reskilling plan for Singaporeans aged 40 and above. This is also a profile who similarly needs to be urged to undertake the reskilling initiative for better future employability. I therefore would urge a careful study of the response of the target pool of ITE graduates and mid-career Singaporeans to further improve the chances of success of this potentially game-changing investment by the Government. Government can consider an even more aggressive move of specifically approaching the lower-skilled gig economy workers, for instance, and others whose industries or jobs are at risk of being obsoleted by technology, including AI. The investment in our younger ITE graduates and mid-career Singaporeans is not the only ones that need careful eyeballing and tweaking if need be. Some initiatives such as the corporate income tax and personal income tax for everybody, the reduction of fees in preschools and SPED schools are blunt measures that signal Government's care and empathy. Yet, they may or may not be needed or appreciated by some Singaporeans. An option for those not in need to redirect their benefits for a common pool for those more in need should be considered. Much like how unused CDC Vouchers are channeled to charities with an Institution of Public Character (IPC) status. I therefore urge Government to undertake a proactive mitigation strategy to guarantee the effective execution and success of Budget 2024's well-intentioned initiatives.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Budget 2024 is a well-stitched effort to tackle both immediate challenges and longer-term issues affecting our citizens and businesses. Whilst it is not flawless, it does stand as evidence of our Government’s commitment to listening and understanding ground realities. I am very grateful to my residents, grassroots activists, fellow volunteers and my Central District CDC councillors and partners for sharing their insights on Budget 2024 with me. Many of them have expressed admiration for its comprehensive suite of benefits to individuals, households, seniors, businesses and families with children in preschools and special education schools. The Budget’s positive features are widely recognised and appreciated. In my speech, I wish to focus on three areas of concern: firstly, the need to scrutinise if the intended outcomes of Budget 2024’s initiatives will be met; secondly, the sustainability of escalating social development costs; and thirdly, the need to foster a more robust ecosystem of partnership to make the Budget theme of “Building our shared future together” a tangible reality. First, on the need to ensure intended outcomes are achieved. Let me provide one example that is close to my heart. I applaud the Government’s bold and potentially game-changing investment in two target groups within the Singaporean labour force: one, our young ITE graduates below the age of 30; and two, our mid-career Singaporeans. However, the devil, as they say, is in the details. For instance, while attractive financial incentives are provided for ITE graduates below age 30, to pursue further diploma studies, several questions remain unanswered.”
“I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State if MOH would consider working closely with some very good non-profit organisations that are experts in ADHD, for example, such as SPARK and Unlocking ADHD. And I believe that the Ministry of Education and MOH are already in touch with them, and I wonder if the Government can work closer with them to study further how public education and strategies regarding ADHD can be promoted and, therefore, many more can be helped.”
“Last of all, the best practice of interagency collaborations. Interagency coordination and collaboration should be further enhanced to provide appropriate and streamlined support for vulnerable persons. For instance, the participation rate and useability of the Ministry of Social and Family Development's Developmental Disability Registry could be improved to aid the criminal justice system. Another possibility is this: for incarcerated individuals with developmental and other related disabilities, appropriate facilities should be established, separate from those for typical offenders. We can tap on the learnings in Singapore from the youth rehabilitation programmes run by Trybe, remove the age limit and learn from them a good rehabilitation programme, and also halfway houses operated by various social service agencies. In summary, I would to seek, therefore, the Ministry's considered responses to better adoption of the measures that I have mentioned to safeguard the interests of vulnerable individuals in our criminal justice system: (a) the use of specialised interview techniques; (b) enhancing the Appropriate Adults Scheme for a safe and supportive interview setting; (c) more trained personnel in LEAs, including the Public Defence Office; and (d) better interagency coordination and collaborations for better outcomes. In conclusion, Sir, the criminal justice process must effectively protect vulnerable individuals, especially those with disabilities, special needs or limited education, from the point of arrest, through interviews, trials, sentences and incarceration. Failing to do so would constitute an injustice. Nonetheless, I still support the Bill.”
“First, investigations should employ specialised interview techniques that are trauma-informed, age-appropriate and sensitive to disabilities. Second, interviews should be conducted in a safe and supportive environment. For several years now, the Singapore Government's Appropriate Adult Scheme has allowed independent, trained volunteers, that is, the Appropriate Adults (AAs), to accompany young or vulnerable individuals during interviews with LEAs. A number of the AAs who are volunteers are generalists trained probably once only upon recruitment and they play a limited role in safeguarding the rights and well-being of vulnerable persons. I, therefore, seek an update from the Ministry on the Appropriate Adult Scheme's current status, including the number of volunteers deployed, their profiles, the training provided, accomplishments, challenges and some future plans for advancement of this important scheme. Third, there is also a best practice where personnel are trained in handling disabilities and other vulnerable persons, training for persons within the Police force, medical teams conducting, for example, the forensic medical examinations, and agencies like the Public Defence Office. Vulnerable individuals must have access to legal representation who understands their specific needs. It is essential to provide specialised training for law enforcement and the judiciary on how to handle cases involving such individuals sensitively. These training programmes should be mandatory, ongoing and available both in person and online. Ideally, specialised units with experts in child psychology, geriatrics, disability services and trauma should be created to offer advice, assistance and referrals in investigations involving vulnerable individuals.”
“Sir, I stand in support of the Criminal Procedure (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. This Bill seeks to enhance Singapore's criminal justice system by introducing measures to strengthen crime-fighting capabilities and granting more authority to the Police and other LEAs. The major measures include establishing a new legislative framework for FMEs and granting the power to further detain dangerous and high-risk offenders who pose a threat to the public. Sir, I recognise the need for LEAs to have greater power to conduct criminal investigations efficiently and effectively. However, I am concerned about protecting the rights and interests of vulnerable individuals, particularly those with disabilities or special needs or those with limited education. These may be the accused or they may be victims of the crime. Some of these vulnerable persons may not fully understand or be able to articulate their thoughts and feelings. Others may not grasp the implications of their actions due to their disabilities. Some are also at risk of being exploited or coerced into illegal activities, such as acting as drug mules or committing crimes under the influence of others. Even when they speak what they believe is the truth, some of them may not comprehend the consequences of their words or actions. Therefore, it is crucial to safeguard their safety, dignity, rights and well-being while maintaining the integrity of the legal process. There are well-recognised best practices for protecting the rights, dignity and well-being of vulnerable persons within criminal justice systems everywhere. I would like to outline some of these best practices and seek the Ministry's feedback on their implementation in our country's justice system.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for the good work and the comprehensive reply to our Parliamentary Questions. I understand of course there is a need to meet the increasing accommodation needs nationally to address the increasing housing needs of both locals and foreign non-home owners in this very tight rental market. And, of course, looking at the number of questions, many Members of Parliament have had to handle disputes over the years primarily between the transient tenants and the neighbours who own their homes permanently. I have two supplementary questions. First, where tenants are non-citizens, are there more specific, more blatant, explicit measures to ensure that they are familiar with local standards in terms of safety, in terms of noise or even the use of these units as Airbnb type of accommodation or practices like unlawful partitions. That is one. Are there blatant, explicit measures to ensure they understand? Number two, to ensure that the units do not turn out to be unregulated hostels, causing a negative impact on both the occupants and the neighbours, what are some measures that can be done to proactively prevent this from happening?”
“And lastly, on security administrative support. Although it is stated that the Bill will not involve the Government in any extra financial expenditure, it may not be so, in reality. There is, hence, a fourth concern pertaining to the need for at least basic security and administrative support, even as one tries to distinguish between official and private engagements for the President and Cabinet Ministers. In cases involving national interest spaces like the economy, security, human development and healthcare, the Government's provision of such support should be considered. There will be times when it is essential to help ensure the organised conduct of the businesses, to ensure that the status of the President and Cabinet Ministers are at least retained for the image of Singapore. Therefore, in conclusion, I believe that the benefits of this Bill outweigh the concerns. Hence, while operational challenges may arise, and notwithstanding my seeking clarification for some of the concerns that I have raised, I am confident that they can be addressed through transparency, accountability and a commitment to serving the public interest. And therefore, I stand in support of this Bill.”