Dennis Tan Lip Fong
Singapore
“Yes, Sir. By combining practical experience with advanced analytics, we can transform traditional operational careers in the highly productive technology-enabled professions, ensuring that more high-value decision-making and better paying jobs remain in Singapore.”
“When Singapore officers are deployed at Bukit Chagar in Johor Bahru, Malaysia, do they enjoy the same legal protections and operational autonomy as their Malaysian counterparts enjoy when stationed in Singapore?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Relating to one issue of co-parenting, I would like to ask will the Ministry consider granting foster parents synchronised access to the child's Health Buddy app? Currently, foster parents have no access to the app and require the cooperation of biological parents.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for his reply. Would the Ministry consider a tiered co-payment model for private providers similar to the EIPIC-P scheme where middle-income families can pay a regulated rate for a fixed number of additional private therapy hours to supplement their child's public intervention?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just one clarification for the Senior Minister of State. I thank the Government for acknowledging the gap regarding the software-driven energy degradation and for the commitment to monitor and test when necessary.”
“Yes, just a quick clarification. I thank the Minister of State for the answers and the details. The feedback I receive is pertaining, especially to making appointments, because there have been instances where foster parents experience appointments being cancelled without their knowledge, and then having to arrive at the hospital unnecessa…”
The complete record
Every one of 1,079 lines we hold for Dennis Tan Lip Fong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 22.
“We should be concerned about conveniently located medical services disappearing from our neighbourhoods at exactly the point when Singapore is becoming a super-aged society that needs more care, not less. A volunteer shared with me recently her worries for her 87-year-old mother who lives in her own flat and is under the trusted care of her family doctor a few blocks away. This doctor runs a solo practice in a void deck shop without air-conditioning. He only opens a few hours a day, but this suits the elderly patients that he mostly serves. If this doctor is forced to close due to implementation of the HIB, my volunteer is worried that her mother will no longer have convenient access to care. It will be stressful for this volunteer as a daughter living away from her mother whenever her mother falls ill, needs to top up her medicines or take a vaccination, whereas currently, she trusts her mom to visit this doctor and her troubles will usually be sorted. Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope MOH will provide the necessary assistance to all small clinics and practises, so that the burden of the HIB and NEHR may not be so overwhelming for these doctors, such that they will prefer to close their practices instead. Next, extend financial support beyond GP IT Enablement Grant and set up an IT Shared Services Office. Given the challenges I have highlighted above, will the Minister consider giving a grant for small clinics or practices with say, fewer than three full-time practitioners to assist the clinic or doctors in their ongoing compliance, with the HIB's cyber and data standards and practices? This may be an extension of the GP IT Enablement Grant, but targeted towards the smaller operators rather than the chain clinics. Going beyond financial support is also important.”
“How can we ensure the essential cyber hygiene practices like staff training and regular software updates are undertaken without imposing disproportionate cost burden and/or adding to the existing pressures of running their small practices? We should also be concerned whether this leads to GPs passing the cost down to patients and reducing affordability in primary care. How will MOH ensure that such cost will not be passed down to patients? How will it affect our mom-and-pop clinics and family doctors? Mr Deputy Speaker, many family doctors are people who are located near to our homes convenient for us to visit when trouble hits and who have known us and our family members for years, if not decades. They are an important part of keeping us safe and healthy. With the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) and Healthier SG schemes, they have become more integrated into the overall health delivery infrastructure nationwide – at least some of them. However, they are often by nature very small, akin to mom-and-pop clinics, often fronted by one doctor with, say, possibly another on a locum basis, or not even without another locum, they open only part of the day. Some may not even have air conditioning and some may still use paper records. Furthermore, the doctors are older, serving their patients past their official retirement age, which makes them well loved and trusted. I do wonder whether the passing of the HIB with punitive costs for non-participation and compliance may be the straw that breaks this group and push them to give up their practices for good. I certainly hope not, even if they are in a minority.”
“While the HIB's stringent requirements are essential for safeguarding patient data and access, they place a significant burden on smaller healthcare providers who may no longer opt out of contribution to NEHR. Under Part 2, Division 2, failing to comply will lead to a fine not exceeding $20,000, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to both. In the case of continuing offence after conviction, a daily fine of $1,000 applies. Large institutions like SingHealth and National Health Group may mobilise their dedicated IT teams. Small practices, however, will find themselves in unfamiliar territory and will have to rely on costly external consultants to comply, creating a significant operational burden. On an ongoing basis, the challenge is particularly acute when it comes to warding off attacks and data breaches. Under the law, healthcare providers of all sizes share legal liability for data breaches caused by health data intermediary failure, placing a disproportionate burden on clinics that lack control over these risks. Although the GP IT Enablement Grant offers one-time subsidies for adopting NEHR compatible system, as I understand, they do not cover the ongoing cost of maintaining cyber security compliance. Small healthcare operators may be out pocket for purposes of upgrading and maintaining their clinic management systems to meet strict security standards, audit trails and data portability. Even with this grant, GPs are simply not trained to assess whether their providers use genuine end-to-end encryption, secure server configurations, or follow basic cyber security best practices. How can we help clinics to use appropriately secure yet affordable compliance systems?”
“Even with strict regulations and legal governance frameworks, there has been cases of unauthorised access as well as outright hacks. It is public knowledge that some of the most egregious data breaches in the past 10 years have happened within healthcare. Chief among them was the 2018 hack of the SingHealth system that led to a Committee of Inquiry, and also the delay of the NEHR roll-out by more than five years. The personal particulars of 1.5 million SingHealth patients, including the then Prime Minister Mr Lee Hsien Loong and the records of outpatient dispensed medicines belonging to 160,000 patients were stolen. Till today, the identified hostile state actors behind the attack remain unaccounted for. More recently, there have been at least two reported cases of unauthorised access by healthcare professionals. For instance, a neurosurgeon at SingHealth was dismissed in 2022 for inappropriately assessing the medical records of over 70 patients not under his care. More recently, in 2025, a customer service associate at the NUH was found to have unlawfully accessed the records of 11 individuals, including family members and former colleagues via NUHS' internal Epic system, reportedly driven by personal motives to reconnect with one of them. While the overwhelming majority of healthcare professionals uphold ethical and legal standards, the ease of access to such records will severely undermine public trust. Many of us may be asking how can I be sure that the GP clinic at the next block to mine with only one and half doctors, and one to two doctors and two clinic staff on shifts be able to comply with the HIB and also be self-protected against cyber and data risk created by either human or system errors. The NEHR is only as secure as the smallest operators are.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, the HIB is transformative in a way. It will set the legal framework for the mandatory contribution, collection, storage and disclosure of health information across the entire healthcare ecosystem of Singapore. When passed, fragmented and often paper-based health records held by individual healthcare providers will be a thing of the past, morphing into a unified interoperable NEHR. This is not merely a technological upgrade. The Bill promises smoother, safer, more efficient healthcare for all patients under our country's health system. Given Singapore's rapidly ageing population, successful implementation of NEHR is critical to ensuring seamless care and continuity across different healthcare institutions. Trade-offs may test people's trust. However, these benefits come with trade-offs, which, if not properly addressed, will affect the people's trust in this national Smart Nation effort. After all, nothing could be more sensitive and personal than one's health information records over the years. The thought of such intimate human data being viewed by viewed by nameless, faceless persons, other than your own doctors, or even worse, falling to the hands of hackers, must be very real to some of us when we contemplate the HIB. Thus, while I support the Bill, I wish to raise a few concerns posed by the HIB, and I will be speaking on the challenges for smaller healthcare operators, such as single or dual-doctor practitioner clinics that many of my residents rely on for their daily medical needs. Sir, we must recognise that the centralisation of health data across all healthcare providers, from the very small to the very large, introduces significant privacy and cybersecurity risks across the entire ecosystem.”
“Yes, Sir. One last point. The redevelopment of Paya Lebar Airbase site into a huge Housing and Development Board estate – I believe 800 hectares, 150,000 homes – just next to this area to this area will have significant environmental —”
“Yes, Sir. Please do indulge me, because these are very important concerns. I will hurry on next. The forested area in this eastern bank of the Sungei Serangoon is a nice, forested area grown over the last 20 over years, notwithstanding the Government regarding it as a brownfield site. So, as per my previous appeals and my previous Parliamentary Questions in 2023, this is the only remaining significant track of green spaces on the eastern half of Singapore of such a size, literally from Tampines Road to Pasir Ris Industrial Drive 1 and to Serangoon East Dam. By preserving it, we will allow continual connectivity for migratory birds to fly between the Northern Islands and other parts of Singapore. It will also allow the flora and fauna, and even the wildlife that may dwell in these green spaces, including migratory birds in their annual migration journeys between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres as they fly through Singapore —”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for his answers. Sir, a number of my residents, especially those living in Kingsford Waterbay condo, asking whether the Government can relocate the proposed bus depot site from the current position, which is in the middle of the forested area between Buangkok East Drive and Tampines Road, to shift to the area at or around the current heavy vehicle park along Tampines Road. I will share some of the reasons for this consideration. Firstly, I note from the Minister of State's answer was that the bus depot site is away from residential area, if I heard him correctly. Actually, at the at the beginning of construction, it appears that the site is directly opposite Kingsford Waterbay condo, as well as Cape View HDB Estate, and another condo next to Kingsford Waterbay. If you are looking from the condo across the Sungai Serangoon, it is actually much nearer. And so, some of the feedback given by my residents include noise and dust disamenity. In fact, at this beginning, onset of the construction, and when the bus depot is eventually constructed, there will also be noise and dust disamenity, bearing in mind that bus depot operations typically end late in the evening and start early in the morning.”
“I am not sure I heard the Minister accurately, so I just want to ask for good order. When an application is before the SFO, will the office do a first round of anti-money laundering search that is usually required by all financial institutions, law firms or accounting firms, when a client approaches with a new business? And if not, could I request that the Government consider requiring the SFO to do so because, after all, it is the first gatekeeper in any of this relationship with a new family office?”
“That is right, Sir. Yes, sorry about that. Mr Deputy Speaker, at the beginning of my speech just now, I did not, and I wish to make a declaration that I am a practising lawyer, whose work may from time to from time to time include employment.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt the proceedings. At the beginning of my speech just now, I did not make a declaration. Can I make a very quick declaration now?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I have encountered many residents in neighbourhood disputes who, due to concerns about procedural and evidence requirements, dare not approach the Community Mediation Centre (CMC) or Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal (CDRT). Even though these procedures are already simpler than ordinary Court processes, they still pose challenges for ordinary people. Therefore, I hope the Government, when implementing this Bill, will not overlook these practical difficulties. Make the complaint procedures as easy to understand as possible, so that employees who are not very familiar with or not very good at writing English can smoothly complete the process. Mr Deputy Speaker, the direction of the Workplace Fairness Bill is correct. To ensure its success, the key is that we must be committed to ensuring that employees are willing, able and can make use of it, whilst employers can afford it and society can trust in its fairness. (In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, the Workplace Fairness Bill represents an important move towards fairness at work. To ensure its success, we must focus on making the process accessible to ordinary workers and manageable for small employers while maintaining the confidence of all stakeholders through transparency and fairness. I look forward to the Minister's clarifications on the questions I have raised. Notwithstanding the questions and concerns I have raised. I support the Bill.”
“Whether they are discriminated against due to age, gender, pregnancy, childbirth, marital status, caregiving responsibilities, nationality, race, religion, language ability or disability, or are wrongfully dismissed, employees can protect their rights according to law. This is indeed an important step forward. However, having rights does not mean everyone can exercise those rights. For some employees with lower income or education levels, they may not even know they have such rights. Even if they know, they may not dare to, not know how to, or where to start. Even if they have heard about it, they might think: "Aiya, these procedures are so complicated, I cannot explain clearly, and I do not understand those forms." Some people will be afraid – afraid of saying the wrong thing, afraid of offending their boss, afraid of trouble. As a result, even when they are in the right, they dare not speak up; even when they have grievances, they dare not seek redress. For them, lodging a complaint is like walking into an unfamiliar place, completely lost and not knowing where to begin. So I would like to ask the Minister: First, will the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) publish appropriate and sufficient materials and guidelines so that workers clearly understand how to lodge complaints about workplace discrimination? Second, will the Government use multiple languages – including Chinese, Malay and Tamil – so that more employees also know their rights? Third, will practical assistance be provided to employees with lower education levels, such as teaching them how to fill out forms, prepare documents and answering procedural questions, helping workers with weaker literacy skills or less confidence to take that first step steadily?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, the new section 3A provides that a new civil action may be brought for a newly created statutory tort of discrimination by an individual who is the subject of an alleged discriminatory employment decision made by an employer under section 17(1). The Bill has provided for the jurisdictional limits of discrimination claims between the ECT and the High Court. I would like to ask the Minister whether there will be new heads of claim peculiar to this new tort. Aside from possible loss of earnings, possible loss of benefits and even possibly expenses arising from discrimination, such as actual medical expenses to treat stress caused by discrimination, for example, which may arguably be supported under current laws on quantum, would there be other new heads of damage? For example, can losses such as injury to feelings be claimable and if so, how will such claims be quantified? The Government's answers can provide helpful and important preliminary guidance and reference via the Hansard for the implementation of the new law. I hope the typical quantum of claims arrived by the ECT and the High Court for the new tort will be reasonable for both employers and employees, so that there will be fairness for both employers and employees. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, this Workplace Fairness Bill, together with existing regulations, allows employees to seek mediation with their employers or lodge complaints with arbitration bodies when they encounter unfair treatment.”
“Such data, for instance, the number of cases by sector, the types of discrimination alleged and their outcomes, would help identify trends and systemic issues. If certain sectors consistently show higher proportions of age-related or gender-related claims, the Ministry can then target outreach training or policy interventions more effectively. Beyond transparency, data can also strengthen accountability by helping to detect repeat offenders. The proposed new section 45 of the Workplace Fairness Bill allows the Commissioner or the Registrar of the High Court to share data to the public agency for the purpose of policy formulation or review, or to a public agency as is necessary in the public interest. There is room to build on this by establishing a more systematic internal process to monitor and flag repeated breaches by rogue employers. This would enable earlier intervention and signal that the framework is responsive to patterns of behaviour, not just individual disputes. It can also help to study undesirable practices or behaviour on the part of errant employers, or even employees, which MOM can use to consider improvements and revisions to prevailing laws. Ultimately, Mr Deputy Speaker, the true measure of workplace fairness lies not only in the number of disputes resolved, but in how many are prevented by embedding a capacity for early intervention within this framework. We make fairness not just a recourse, but a shared habit woven into the daily life of our workplaces and the moral fabric of our economy. New civil course of action and quantum.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I also wish to highlight the impact on SMEs, or even smaller employers amongst the SMEs. Many SMEs operate on lean manpower and limited administrative support. Even though the system is designed to be a lawyer-free process at ECT level, the reality is that such an employer still needs to gather facts, compile documentation and prepare explanations to defend its case. A small enterprise with, say, 25 to 30 employees, for example, is unlikely they have the HR or legal support that a larger company can afford. Given that this Bill introduces new procedural requirement obligations and the possibility of claims being lodged against employers, how can it be ensured that smaller enterprises are not overwhelmed by the process? What kind of clear guidance or advisory support will be given for SMEs to understand the process and their responsibilities? What safeguards will be in place to identify and dismiss clearly unsubstantiated or frivolous claims early so that small employers are not subject to unnecessary administrative or even reputational burden? This is not to discourage legitimate complaints, as every genuine claim should be heard fairly, but the system should also ensure that smaller employers are protected from disproportionate strain. Next, accountability through transparency and prevention of repeat offenders. Well, Mr Deputy Speaker, while confidentiality for employees and employers must be respected, complete opacity also limits public learning and deterrence. A people-centred balance will be to keep case details confidential, but at the very least require the publication of anonymised aggregated outcomes and quarterly data.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, from my contact with quite a number of my Hougang residents who were embroiled in neighbours disputes, for example, many were deterred by the procedural requirements for the Community Dispute Resolution Tribunal (CDRT), and would even rather not sought resolution through CDRT, even if the procedure for filing claims at CDRT may have been relatively simplified as compared to civil or criminal procedure for the State and High Courts. Lay people are often not comfortable, even with say, the need to file sworn evidence to start the claims. So, in this connection, I urge the Government to continue to work towards simplifying claims procedure for lay people across different applications, including for the discrimination claims at ECT or in the High Court. Next, I would like to seek clarification in respect of work-pass holders. Do they have a right to bring a claim for discrimination? I believe the answer is yes. If so, should we be concerned that employers have the ability to cancel work passes and repatriate their employees upon termination of employment before or in the midst of their pursuing or initiating a claim, and they may not be able to remain in Singapore to attend mediation or hearings, weakening the practical effect of the protections offered under this Bill. I would like to seek the Minister's assurances that work pass holders will receive adequate protection, but without overtaxing employers, pending the claims outcome. Employers should, of course, not be penalised for unsuccessful claims. For example, they should not be responsible for employees' additional expenses resulting from the unsuccessful claims, including expenses for prolonged stay in Singapore. Next, impact on smaller employers.”
“However, for many lower-income or less educated workers or employees, they may still not be aware that they have such rights or may be intimidated by the process of filing a claim, as it is often not just the information itself, but the practical process that is challenging. Understanding what happens next, for example, what to expect after filing a claim, what documents to bring, or how to respond during mediation can be intimidating for those unfamiliar with formal dispute processes. Ensuring that help is not only available, but understandable and useable will make the right to redress truly meaningful. I would therefore like to ask the Minister: will TADM be publishing information and guidelines on filing discrimination claim, similar to what have been done for salary, salary-related, employment or dismissal claims? Will there be any public education efforts in vernacular languages to ensure that low-wage workers are also aware of their rights pertaining to workplace discrimination and recourse available to them as outlined in this Bill? Will there be practical step-by-step support available, such as assistance with completing claim forms or responding to procedural queries, for workers who may lack the literacy or confidence to file a claim? For instance, the Community Justice Centre currently provides volunteers to assist litigants in person in our Courts. A similar scheme could perhaps be adapted for TADM mediations to ensure that workers who need it can receive practical guidance and reassurance throughout the process.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, in August 2016 at the debate during the Second Reading of the Employment Claims Bill then, I had said that employment claims disputes are often mired in the context of contending allegations or breaches of employment contract. An unfair dismissal or discrimination could well be part of the factual matrix in some cases. I also suggested for one tribunal to hear all types of labour disputes, including employment claims and claims for unfair dismissal and discrimination. Today, I am happy to support and welcome this Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the intent of this Bill which establishes the dispute resolution framework to address workplace discrimination. Employees will have a direct right to seek redress on discrimination through a defined process of mediation and when necessary, adjudication by the ECT or the High Court. This is a welcome development, especially in the context of our ageing population and changing social landscape which puts the spotlight on fair employment practices. However, as with many new frameworks, the true test of its effectiveness will lie in how it works in practice where ordinary workers can navigate the process and whether smaller employers can comply without being unduly burdened. It is therefore important that the Bill's implementation is accessible, balanced and workable for all parties involved. Accessibility for workers. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Bill, together with other existing legislations, empower affected employees to initiate mediation or claims against employers relating to discrimination claims and discrimination-related disputes and dismissal claims.”
“Mr Speaker, I have two supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. One, how does the Ministry ensure that inquiry-based and collaborative learning approaches are not only present in the curriculum, but meaningfully integrated into classroom practice across all schools, including those serving lower-income or higher needs communities? My second supplementary question, has the Ministry recently conducted comparative studies of other primary school education systems, particularly, any that have successfully balanced academic rigour with creativity and collaborations, and what lessons, if any, have been drawn from these systems?”
“I do agree with the views expressed by the hon Ms Gho. I am respectfully of the view that I think 25 kilometres per hour, aside from those on road bikes, would be more appropriate for bicycle speed on the road rather than on a shared path. I think most bicycles, other than road bikes, do not travel as much as that speed on shared paths or even on the roads. And I have a separate supplementary question. Mr Speaker, since 2017, when the Active Mobility Act was passed, I have said repeatedly in this House that to promote a safe and considerate riding culture, we need to have regular enforcement and adequate public education for all users, including cyclists. Recently, the Minister of State mentioned that riders could, where necessary, overtake pedestrians on a shared lane by riding into the pedestrian-only lanes – if I hear him correctly from the last Sitting. I am concerned that this may be dangerous, especially riding at a higher speed of say, 20 to 25 kilometres per hour. So, may I ask Minister of State, how extensive are the current public education efforts being carried on the ground, that is, on the shared paths, especially the popular shared paths, to regulate use of all users of shared paths, including advising them to lower their speed, and can these ground outreach efforts be further enhanced?”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for her concluding remarks. I just want to reply to the clarification which Member Mr Foo Cexiang sought. Mr Foo is right, I had made certain clarifications on this issue with the previous Minister. I heard the Minister with his explanation and I am prepared to let this Fund and the plans take off and see how we progress in the initial years and then we can take it from there.”
“Such an approach ensures that taxpayers and airlines can be confident that adjustments are implemented only when the market is ready, keeping Singapore nimble and responsive to dynamic global conditions rather than bound to an arbitrary timeline. Mr Deputy Speaker, in closing, I will reiterate that the market-based solution of an SAF levy as legislated by this Bill is a good step forward. I am heartened that Singapore is taking tangible first steps in line with the global aviation industry's goals. Of course, this must only be the beginning and we should and must explore further avenues for fair and effective decarbonisation after this. I look forward to the Minister of State's clarifications on the questions I have raised. Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding the questions and concerns I have raised, I support this amendment Bill.”
“Given the goal of net-zero future, how does the Government intend to prevent or significantly reduce such carbon leakage after the introduction of our levy? Next, scalability and market capture. Singapore is spearheading the development of SAFs in the region with Neste's Tuas facility, the first of its kind globally, marking a significant step forward. The Government has made clear its intent to continue advancing SAF as a key pillar of Singapore's sustainable aviation strategy. However in a nascent and rapidly evolving industry, technological breakthroughs are unpredictable and can often occur in bursts rather than along a steady trajectory. The CAAS (Amendment) Bill does not prescribe a fixed schedule for increasing the SAF levy on blending ratio. It empowers CAAS to review these from time to time. This raises an important policy question. What should trigger future changes to the levy or SAF target? Should adjustment depend on global supply milestones, declining price differentials or broader regional capacity developments? I know the Senior Minister of State has explained on this. Nevertheless, let me suggest, to ensure flexibility and market alignment, Singapore could adopt a trigger base framework where each revision is activated only when specific verifiable conditions are met. For example, a new blending target could be triggered when global certified SAF supply reaches a certain threshold or once SAF price premiums fall below a defined multiple of Jet A-1 fuel. Alternatively, escalation could be tied to regional production capacity or carbon intensity benchmarks verified under ICAO's CORSIA framework.”
“I asked this because if our ability to make aviation feel more sustainable is still constrained by technological or supply side limitation, we must also think more broadly about reducing emissions through other viable means. This includes reducing per passenger emissions by encouraging airlines to adopt higher passenger density on the aircraft, albeit carefully drawing appropriate balance between basic acceptable comfort and numbers, especially for the economy class. Expert groups, such as the Global Solidarity Levies Task Force has suggested that this could be achieved by raising fees on classes with lower passenger density, such as business or first class, as well as on private jet passengers. Such a policy structure would align the cost of travel more closely with the environmental impact and promote a fairer distribution of the decarbonisation burden. Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, an SAF levy is intended to find the use of more expensive SAF. But this increases operating costs for airlines, which are then typically passed on to passengers as higher ticket price. This situation creates a risk of carbon leakage, which is commonly understood as the increase in emissions outside a region imposing a climate policy due to businesses or consumers shifting their activities to areas with less stringent regulations. In aviation this leakage may happen when airlines or passengers avoid the levy by hard switching. That is to say, they opt for connecting flights to international airports that do not impose the SAF charge, thereby displacing the carbon intensive activity rather than truly reducing global emissions and putting the regulated hub at the competitive disadvantage.”
“So, I would like to ask as a matter of equity and fairness, will the SAF levy be stratified or differentiated to charge those who pollute more such as private jets, special chartered flights or passengers on different classes of travel on commercial airlines and if so, how it will be done. Is the Bill designed to simply allow airlines the discretion to decide how these new costs are passed down to different classes or passengers at least in terms of cost? A flat rate imposition could disproportionately affect those travelling in economy class. Can the Minister also provide some information on the way SAF levy charges will apply for outbound air cargo? Next, fair decarbonisation and supply side. Sir, this Bill represents the Government's first ever airport levy specifically intended for decarbonisation purposes, which is a noteworthy step. I would like the Minister to elaborate on the expected impact of this levy and fund on the development of Singapore's domestic SAF industry and its overall supply. I would also like to ask whether the industry is currently constrained primarily by a lack of guaranteed demand from airlines, or is this levy needed more because it will provide the financial support necessary for the industry to overcome the technological and cost challenges of producing SAF? I note that IATA recently released a study suggesting the main bottleneck is more with technology rather than the availability of feedstocks. We have used cooking oil, being the main commercially available process. In the Government's view, how far is the industry from commercially scaling up other crucial processes such as power to liquid SAF?”
“Having a clear and fair framework for regional cooperation will also strengthen Singapore's status as a leader in the carbonisation efforts in the region. Furthermore, not all feedstock are made equal. Some have significant significantly higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions due to inefficient conversion, higher carbon cost at production or polluting by-products. We must ensure that we do not inadvertently become a tool for green washing in our quest to be a leader in the nascent SAF industry. We can perhaps strengthened safeguards by defining categories of feedstock acceptable under this Bill. Next, the impact on travellers and fair decarbonisation. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am conscious of the potential financial impact this levy will have on travellers, especially those who rely on air travel to visit family or pursue work opportunities. This is set against the context that Singapore already charges fairly high airport fees, for example, due to the Terminal 5 development levy, otherwise known as the Airport Development Levy. On the issue of financial impact on travellers, I have the following questions. First on the expected cost. Based on the current market rates for SAF and the projected adoption mandate, can the Government provide any illustration on the additional expected cost for a typical passenger flying of Changi Airport. A clear illustration is helpful to manage public expectations. Second, I note that the Bill allows for the possibility of prescribing different rates of SAF levy for different classes of passengers or cargoes, airports or aircraft, places of landing or any other differential basis. This seems rather broad.”
“Two, issues of process for the implementation of the SAF procurement mechanism. I turn to the issues of process regarding the implementation of the procurement mechanism, it is not entirely clear from the Bill who or what will be the procuring entity mentioned in clause 5, which outlines the purposes of the SAF fund. Currently, there is only one major SAF operator in Singapore. Given that we have ambitions to scale up the sector, how can new players be assured that the procurement process is fair and open to all? I would also like to ask the Minister, what is the timeline for the formal establishment and operationalisation of this procuring entity? In the interim before the entity is formally set up, is the CAAS the designated procuring entity? How is the procuring entity going to be appointed and governed? Will its structure be similar to existing models such as the Singapore Gas Co Ptd Ltd under the Energy Market Authority? Will private sector firms be involved in this procuring entity? Regardless of whether it is a wholly owned, public or mixed entity, will the procuring entity be subject to the standard public agency procurement rules to ensure fair and competitive processing of SAF? Mr Deputy Speaker, as a small nation, Singapore does not produce enough convertible feedstock to be self-sufficient in SAFs, especially given our status as a regional air hub. However, our neighbours in Malaysia, Indonesia and Australia, produce or are capable of producing large volumes of feedstock. We have healthy trade relationships with many economies in the region and we should consider establishing a cooperative framework that can ensure a steady supply of feedstock into our facilities.”
“My queries fall broadly into the following categories: one, the rationale and transparency of the proposed SAF fund mechanism; two, issues of process regarding the implementation of the fund; three, the impact of the new levy on travellers and the broader strategy of fair decarbonisation of Singapore's aviation sector and; four, ensuring that we remain ready to scale and capture market share as the technology develops. One, why the fund mechanism. Mr Deputy Speaker, according to clause 9 of this Bill, airlines are expected to potentially pass down the cost of SAF adoption to travellers. If the costs are ultimately borne by the consumer, may I ask why has the Government chosen the method of establishing a fund for the collection of SAF levies to procure SAF over other methods? I note this is different from the funding mechanism in say, the EU or the UK. Why not allow the cost to be passed through directly and transparently by the airlines? Is the fund primarily intended as a risk-pooling mechanism, or does it serve another strategic purpose? Secondly, on the issue of transparency, I would like, will the collections, purchases and timing of SAF procurement through the fund be made public and transparent? It is stated that the fund will not form part of the CAAS revenue and will also be used for administrative cost. Given that the fund appears designed to have some slack after SAF purchases, which is prudent, will the public have access to information on how much surplus or slack there is in the fund annually? Furthermore, does the Government have any projections yet on the annual total collections via the levy? This information is vital for public accountability and for assessing the efficiency and scale of this new policy tool.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (Amendment) Bill whilst seemingly technical, is a critical piece of legislation that puts into policy and operationalises Singapore's commitment to tackling carbon emissions from the aviation sector through the increased adoption of SAF. The adoption of SAF is broadly recognised by the scientific community and the industry as a necessary step in our pathway towards achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 and crucially, in striving to meet the Paris Agreement goals of limiting global warming to below two degrees Celsius. The production of SAF is still nascent and breakthroughs may come in sparse so Singapore must stay agile to capitalise on them. With our worldclass logistics trade links and existing refinery presence, we are well-placed to lead in the regional SAF industry. We can build flexibility into our SAF regimes so that when new pathways mature, we can scale up quickly. As a party that supports ambitious climate action in line with scientific consensus, the Workers' Party (WP) supports the intent and broad purpose of this Bill. We believe it is important to tackle carbon emissions from international aviation even if they are not covered under Singapore's national carbon budget. This is because it is the right thing to do. It is an area where we have a measure of control and it is a move that will benefit our economy and society in the long run by future-proofing our status as an international aviation hub. Generally, the new provisions in the Bill allow for a more straightforward and policy stable approach to SAF adoption. This is commendable. Nevertheless, I have some clarifications to seek from the Minister of State regarding the mechanics and implications of this legislation.”
“Could the Minister elaborate on the specific post-2021 training enhancements and refresher courses introduced for approved persons under the Rapid Transit Systems Act, and how will these proven standards be directly adopted or even enhanced for the new cohort of bus-related approved persons? Can the Minister explain for the benefit of the public, what are the specific protocols that will govern a free search on board a public bus or at a bus interchange? Are there any protocols to ensure both commuter privacy and officer safety? Mr Speaker, Singaporeans understand the need for security, just as we also value clarity and efficiency. There is the opportunity to apply the lessons learnt from the Rapid Transit Systems Act introduction to make the Bus Services Industry Act amendments as seamless and publicly acceptable as possible. This expansion must be a justified necessity beyond mere legislative symmetry. I look forward to the Minister's clarification on the matters of necessity, operational efficiency and critical safeguards. Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the concerns I have raised, I support the Bill.”
“Finally, given that buses and bus interchanges are inherently more porous than enclosed rail systems, how effective will mandatory screening be and how can we avoid creating unnecessary tension, especially given passenger loads during peak times. Two, operational challenges and effect on seamlessness and commuter flow. The LTA has previously stated that the time taken for random screening on the MRT is kept to a minimum, often under 30 seconds. However, the operational environment of a bus interchange and a public bus is vastly different from a fare-controlled MRT station. Touching on issues of operational impact and public convenience, how will the LTA and the bus operators ensure these checks, whether on a moving bus or at a busy bus interchange, do not cause disproportionate delays to commuter journeys, which rely on rapid boarding and alighting. Specifically for bus interchanges that are co-located with MRT stations, like Jurong East, Woodlands or Ang Mo Kio, where commuters may have already been screened upon entering MRT. What steps will be taken to prevent the duplication of checks and thus, minimise commuter inconvenience? What is the projected manpower requirement to staff for these new screening points at bus interchanges and will this draw resources away from other crucial public transport operations? Three, safeguards and training, applying the approved person experience. Like the Rapid Transit Systems Act, extending the proposed powers to approved persons under the Bus Services Industry Act similarly necessitates a high level of public confidence and scrutiny. On accountability and safeguards, the implementation of free searches on the rail network was backed by the 2021 legislative amendments.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, while I support the broader objectives of this Bill, particularly the administrative amendments that seek to streamline our land and sea transport regulations for greater efficiency, I have a number of questions regarding the proposed amendments to the Bus Services Industry Act concerning security screening and searches. We have already travelled this road with the rail network. The legal provisions for mandatory screening, including x-ray scans and free searches, were variously introduced under the Rapid Transit Systems Act and implemented in phases in 2018 and 2021. I have no issue with the principle of transport security, but I have some questions regarding the proposed expansion to the bus network and ensuring that we learn from the roll-out on the MRT. One, justification for expansion. What did we learn from the Rapid Transit Systems Act roll-out? The existing security paradigm has already seen the implementation of enhanced security MRT stations, many of which are physically integrated with bus interchanges. I would like to ask the Minister, what are the key operational or threat-based lessons drawn from the implementation of mandatory screening and free searches on the MRT/LRT network that necessitate this extension to the bus network? How often were the searches carried out and what was the level of non-compliance on the MRT? Can the Minister clarify the specific heightened threat assessment, if any, that necessitates extending powers of free searches and mandatory screening to our bus interchanges and onboard public buses at this time? Can the Minister also provide a detailed explanation of the specific and unique threat profile to the bus network?”
“We must continue to ensure that our commitment to tackling climate change is reflected in a decisive and transparent plan of action that meets the urgency of this crisis. Mr Speaker, the points I have made today on Active Ageing Centres, means-testing for healthcare, the arts and our efforts to fight climate change, all point to the goal of building a more resilient and compassionate society. We must embrace policies that are transparent, fair and grounded in community. This means providing practical, on-the-ground support for our seniors; ensuring our social safety nets are both just and effective; and fostering a vibrant arts community that strengthens our national soul. It is only by addressing these diverse challenges with unity and a renewed sense of purpose that we can build the caring and confident Singapore we all aspire to be. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.”
“In this regard, I think Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong for his reply to my PQ yesterday where he said that the Government will review the provision of the transitory allowances for companies in Emissions-Intensive and Trade-Exposed sectors and adjust them based on how companies have delivered on their decarbonisation plans, taking into consideration international developments and advancements in the carbonisation technologies. I still hope that the Ministry can in due course provide more details on the Transitory Allowance Framework, including its performance metrics and a clear evaluation of its success in driving decarbonisation. I would also like to know whether the Government has an existing verification and accreditation framework in place to assess if all companies eligible for carbon tax allowances have met their criteria? If so, can the Government share more information on this in this House? Finally, if our climate strategy relies on technologies which are still developing, such as carbon capture, utilisation and storage, we must expect these technologies must scale up as quickly and affordably as hoped, so that Singapore may not fall short of the goals. Ultimately, the urgency of the global climate crisis may demand that we prioritise proven, impactful measures. Can the Government share more on its efforts to overcome challenges arising from the quality and integrity of carbon credits to date, including the limited supply of eligible, high-quality carbon credits that meet Singapore's stringent criteria and also the effectiveness of our current carbon-offsetting programme? Are these offsets genuinely leading to a reduction in global emissions?”
“The WP has consistently asked for clarity on the carbon tax allowances provided to emissions-intensive and trade-exposed sectors in this House, and how these transitory allowances may impact Singapore's ability to achieve its 2030 and 2025 NDCs. The question that remains in is whether these laws and measures will be sufficient in its contribution in an era of global boiling, a term coined by former UN Secretary General in July 2023. Following a recent 10-day visit by the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, Ms Astrid Puentes Riaño, in May 2025, it was reported and there was, I quote her, "significant space for improvement" for Singapore to reduce emissions and protect nature. Notably, Ms Puentes Riaño pointed out the lack of clarity on when environmental impact assessments are done, when they are published, and what is published, and urged the Singapore Government to be more inclusive in engaging the public on environmental matters. The transitory allowance framework provides allowances to ease the financial burden of the carbon tax. However, there is a lack of publicly available information on its implementation and success. With greater details, it will be less difficult for Singaporeans to assess whether these allowances are effective in incentivising companies to decarbonise, and to understand how does the Government ensure that businesses do not use carbon offsets to avoid the more challenging and expensive work of transitioning their operations to be more efficient and less carbon intensive.”
“By doing so, we lend our hand to the ground up initiatives of our arts community and, in turn, we can strengthen our society and deepen the solidarity that defines us. Mr Speaker, I next speak on climate action and accountability. President Tharman brightly spoke of climate change as an existential threat. Mr Speaker, on 10 February 2025, Singapore submitted its 2035 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), which was to reduce emissions to 45-50 million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) by 2035. This represents finally a downward emissions trajectory towards the path to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, as previously announced in 2022. These climate change targets are important to signal Singapore's commitment to the United Nation (UN) Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Paris Agreement. To put into effect these climate targets, Singapore has passed several laws to address climate change, including the Carbon Pricing Act, which puts in place a carbon tax. There are several pathways for Singapore to achieve net-zero, but not all of these are entirely clear at the moment, given global uncertainties and rollbacks in climate efforts. In addition to decarbonisation, Singapore is already importing electricity from neighbouring countries and is exploring purchasing carbon credits, carbon captured, utilisation and storage solutions, and even thinking of building small and medium sized nuclear plants to meet our needs. Knowing more details on these pathways will help inspire trust among the Singaporeans in these options.”
“The impact on our artists and our national soul is indelible, and with every closure of such a space, our country becomes culturally poorer. To truly become a world-class arts hub, we must ensure that our own independent and creative voices are not left behind. A vibrant culture must be nurtured from the ground up, grounded in the authenticity, diversity and the originality of our local artists and the spaces that cultivate them. On the occasion of our nation's 60th birthday this year, we must reflect on the society that we are and the society that we hope to become. Are we content to be a society where homegrown initiatives are almost inevitably replaced by those bigger and better resource? In his National Day Rally speech, the Prime Minister spoke of the importance of the Singapore Spirit. This spirit is, of course, more than just economic progress; it must be tempered with a Singaporean soul and I submit that independent public spaces where artists can develop their craft, communities can be nurtured, and hearts and minds can be expanded, can go some way to contribute to this Singaporean soul. It is my hope that we can reimagine the role of the arts in Singapore, not as an indulgence, but as a pillar of who we are. This means a possible two-pronged approach. First, by creating policies that offer long-term stability for independent art spaces and increasing governmental support where it is most needed for these groups. Second, and crucially, we must foster a collective mindset that sees the arts as essential to our national fabric. Together, through more supportive policies and everyday choices, we can ensure the local artists and independent spaces thrive.”
“They should allow Singaporeans to pursue their passions and to build a society that is not only prosperous but also rich in culture and spirit. Former US President John F Kennedy once said, and I quote, "The life of the arts, far from being an interruption, a distraction in the life of a nation, is very close to the centre of a nation's purpose... and is a test of the quality of a nation's civilisation". This aptly reminds us that while policies have a role to play, it is through art, culture and shared experiences that the people's values are truly shaped. It is paramount that there are spaces for artists to thrive and for our collective spirit to flourish. The recent closure of The Projector in August this year, due to immense pressures of rising costs and changing consumer habits, is a stark and painful reminder of the challenges facing some of our creative communities. It was more than just a cinema; it was a sanctuary for independent artistic expression and a beacon for communities that struggled to find their place. This is not an isolated tragedy. It follows the permanent closure of The Substation, our first independent art centre. Among the reasons for The Substation's closure was the changes in the way they were allowed to use the premise, which meant they could no longer operate in the same manner as before. We also witnessed the displacement of The Necessary Stage, a pillar of our theatre scene from a 17-year-old home, due to redevelopment. These events are not just individual losses. They point to a deeper structural issue where our independent art spaces, the very heart of a ground up culture, lack the long-term stability to survive the combined forces of economic pressure, urban redevelopment and perhaps, less supportive policies.”
“While some seniors may have their own active social networks, better outreach will only help to serve more seniors and better enable the new Age Well initiative and the Healthier SG to achieve their stated goals. Mr Speaker, President Tharman spoke of cushioning burdens and pressures of cost and daily living and ensuring that every citizen has access to life's essentials. I have previously called for removing Annual Value as a means testing criterion for residents with zero household income. This is also in our WP manifesto, and indeed, MPs across the aisle have raised this issue in the previous Parliament. While healthcare subsidies were recently expanded, an Annual Value of over $21,000 still denies crucial medical subsidies to some of those without income, so I am reiterating this call today. The Annual Value is an unjust metric, often outside a homeowner's control. A person's eligibility should be based on transparent person-oriented criteria, not property valuation. We should delink healthcare affordability from property values. Let us use a more accurate person-centric measures to ensure our social safety net is truly strong and fair, especially for our seniors. Mr Speaker, President Tharman had also spoken of building a society where no one is left behind. He stressed that by strengthening assurance and keeping opportunities open, we can build a more resilient and confident society, even in an uncertain world. He also spoke of nurturing a "we first" society, one that is more open and engaged, where citizens are empowered to take initiative and lead ground-up programmes. This is about building a society with deepened solidarity. These aspirations must surely go beyond economic metrics.”
“In this connection, I would like to ask: how does MOH determine the number of residents assigned to each centre? Given the physical limitation of centre spaces, or even manpower shortages, perhaps, it is time to rethink the resident allocation. We may wish to consider reducing the number of residents allocated per centre. This may allow staff to improve outreach, create more meaningful connections with our seniors and enhance the quality of our seniors' time at the centres. As indicated earlier, Active Ageing Centres may often need to rely on common spaces in our community for their activities due to space constraints. I urge the Government to assist centres to make it easier to book these spaces with other agencies, as well as helping to lower, if not, absorb the costs, if any, of using these premises. Perhaps, MOH can help to coordinate with other agencies and stakeholders in this regard. I would also like to ask again what is the Government's strategy for reaching residents who are not currently participating in any community activities with the Active Ageing Centres? I have previously called on MOH to study this issue. With the new Age Well initiative. It is even more crucial for MOH to dedicate resources to this critical outreach challenge. There is now a greater imperative to keep more seniors in touch and engaged. I am keen to understand what percentage of residents the Active Ageing Centres have been unable to engage and how many refuse participation after initial engagement. Does MOH track the reasons for non-engagement and non-participation, or even those who dropped off after initial contact? I hope that MOH will study these issues.”
“I welcome the provision of such services to our seniors who choose to remain in their own flats in the same neighbourhoods they may have lived in for a long time. Many seniors prefer to continue living in the same neighbourhoods they are familiar with for many years – the familiarity, the neighbourly friendships are important for many seniors. I do hope that the goals of the Age Well initiative are translated into tangible underground support, including especially through our Active Ageing Centres. I see that the role of our Active Ageing Centres will become even more important. Let me touch on a few areas of concern I have on this. The Prime Minister had highlighted Toa Payoh's impressive growth in Active Ageing Centres from six to 13 to ensure seniors who do not have to walk far to find a community. In Hougang, we have four Active Ageing Centres within the single member constituency. So, while our centres in Hougang and I am sure elsewhere in Singapore are very much in demand and well-appreciated by many residents who use their services, I do note that the size of the centres is often a limitation to the amount of activities they can organise. Many centres need to make use of the common spaces in the vicinity of their centres, requiring access via Town Councils or the local Residents' Networks. In light of the new Age Well initiative, I urge MOH to consider increasing resources for all Active Ageing Centres, whether resources for manpower, space or for more activities, so that every senior who wants to participate actively has all the opportunity to do so with less need to wait their turns. I hope the Government will make greater efforts to allocate a bigger space to our Active Ageing Centres at the onset, or where ground conditions may allow.”
“Mr Speaker, I would, first, like to start off by thanking my dear Hougang voters and residents for allowing me, once again, to represent them in this Parliament. In Mandarin. (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, firstly, I would like to thank my dear residents and voters in Hougang for allowing me to represent them in Parliament again. (In English): Mr Speaker, in his address at the Opening of the 15th Parliament on 5 September 2025, President Tharman Shanmugaratnam spoke on several themes, including enhancing assurance for all Singaporeans, fostering a more compassionate "we first" society, and deepening solidarity, and strengthening our resilience and enhancing sustainable efforts in face of climate challenges. In my speech, I will be touching on issues relating to these themes. President Tharman spoke of a Singapore where our seniors can age with dignity, purpose and joy. He specifically mentioned that Healthier SG and Age Well SG will help seniors stay healthy in body and mind and provide more choices for independent living. In his National Day Rally in August, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong spoke of the Age Well Neighbourhoods initiative, which would allow for seniors to age in the communities that they are familiar with, and which also aim to deliver assisted living support and services to seniors where they live. Such services include community health posts, access to wellness and social activities, including new activities for both women and men. And for those requiring more assistance, there is also help with daily living activities, such as washing, eating and housekeeping. Such services are currently available in HDB's Community Care Apartments, but in limited estates.”
“I am sorry about that. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to respond to the hon Member, Mr Lye's comments in his speech. So, on behalf of the WP, I refer him to our 26 April 2025 statement, that in particular, we the WP are firmly committed to Singapore's secular, multiracial and multi-religious society, and to protecting the integrity of our electoral process, and in particular, we reject foreign influence in our electoral process.”
“I would like the Minister for Foreign Affairs to explain the rationale behind Singapore voting for the recent UN resolution on 19 September calling for the participation of Palestine at the opening of the 80th session of the UN General Assembly while still withholding the recognition of a Palestinian state.”
“Minister, two supplementary questions. Would it be possible to include etomidate's precursors under the precursors control list? Secondly, how do we ensure that the medical alternatives for etomidate do not get abused by drug addicts as an easy substitute?”
“I hope MSF will adopt a consultative approach with social service agencies before imposing requirements that, if not appropriately funded, may be difficult to meet. We are also told that MSF will support all social residential homes licensed under this Bill with a one-off transition support package. For social residential homes seeking to be licensed for the first time, MSF will also offer pre-licensing checks to identify areas for improvement prior to implementation. Granted that the 61 social residential homes may consist of organisations of different sizes, resources or strengths. May I ask, what does the transition support package consist and would the support vary depending on the size of the organisation or even the extent of assistance as required by specific organisations, rather than a one-size-fits-all? I also hope that the Ministry will exercise sufficient flexibility so that all social residential homes have sufficient time and resources to make the necessary conversion to adapt to the new regulatory regime without being penalised, especially social residential homes who may have been relatively constrained by their resources. We should ensure that the welfare of the clients in these social residential homes will remain the top priority, even as social service agencies convert and adjust to the requirements of the new regime. Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my questions, I support this Bill, which is a step in the right direction and I hope that MSF will consider the concerns I have raised.”
“May I know how MSF is reviewing its funding arrangements with these social service agencies, whom I believe would have shared their feedback on their operational challenges, especially in light of the requirements of the new regime. Third, staffing requirements are a common concern shared by many social service agencies that manage MSF-funded programmes. The resident or client profile of MSF-funded programmes, especially those in residential programmes, is often challenging and complex. Running a social residential home is also a labour-intensive operation, requiring dedicated staff whose pay often does not commensurate with their work. Understaffing and staff burnout often lead to poor service and care standards. May I clarify whether MSF has received feedback from social service agencies running these residential homes for a lower staff-resident ratio and how is the Government going to provide more support for the manpower manning in the social residential homes, which is critical to the requirements and improvements expected under this Bill, even if this may require more funding support? The Minister has also said that this Bill provides for the possibility of homes evolving to meet residents needs where different client profiles could be housed together. As I have mentioned earlier about challenging client profiles, may I clarify the rationale behind MSF considering the possibility of housing different client profiles together? Can the Minister elaborate with some details on this? While there could be economies of scale from a bureaucratic perspective; from the operational perspective, it could be a layering of one challenge onto another.”
“Mr Speaker, under the Social Residential Homes Bill, social residential homes include any premises they are used to provide residential accommodation to persons who require care or social intervention. We are told that MSF oversees a range of social residential homes that provide short- to long-term residential care to different residential profiles. We are told that MSF has taken feedback from Children's Homes, Children's Disability Homes, Sheltered Homes, Welfare Homes, Adult Disability Homes and Adult Disability Hostels, and MSF will support 61 social residential homes to be licensed under this Bill, once passed, to meet the requirements of the Bill. This Bill aims to codify and harmonise existing standards under a common framework to enable Singaporeans in these homes to benefit from a robust regulatory regime. Mr Speaker, while I welcome the introduction of this Bill and the regime, I would like to seek some clarifications. Minister Masagos mentioned on 10 March 2025 that MSF has worked closely with social residential homes to raise standards of care for residents and that the new licensing regime is proposed to ensure the safety and wellness of these residents. May I clarify if MSF has uncovered uneven standards of care among these homes, requiring the proposed increase and harmonisation of regulations under this Bill? And, if so, what are some of these shortfalls and the reasons behind them? Second, a licensing regime, while well-intentioned, also involves the meeting of Government-mandated standards in staffing requirements and other service quality matters. This will involve both upfront and recurrent costs on the part of social service agencies operating these homes.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I ask the Minister of State for serious cases of persistent reoffending, would the Ministry consider, if necessary, working with other agencies or Ministries to consider imposing a business suspension to deter reoffending? Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, we do work with our agencies and partners. What is key, like what I said earlier, is an escalatory approach. While we can use our levers, we also have our other agencies who can use their levers. At the end of the day, fire safety is critical. We do not compromise because what is key is that we want to make sure that while they are able to continue their business, lives are not at risk.”