Edwin Tong Chun Fai
Singapore
“These questions have been answered in the reply to Questions Nos 26 to 31 for Oral Answer on today's Order Paper. [Please refer to "Addressing Issues Identified in Legal Profession Sustainability Study", Official Report, 7 July 2026, Vol 96, Issue 32, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time secti…”
“I am answering in my capacity as the Minister charged with the responsibility for the People's Association. The Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers Scheme was first introduced in June 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic with two key objectives: one, to help Singaporean households cope with daily expenses; and two, to support hawker…”
“If the incident is a result of bilateral obligations relating to data protection and inviolability of equipment not being complied with, then the Government will consider all available legal and diplomatic options, in accordance with the bilateral RTS Link treaties, as well as the relevant international law.”
“In 2024, community sentences under part 17 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (CPC) were imposed in 86 criminal cases handled by the State Courts.”
“It is a five-minute journey across both ways; and with the availability of closed circuit television coverage and the real-time monitoring that will be done by the officers on both sides, we did not think that this will be necessary.”
“The Ministry of Law will provide an oral reply to this Parliamentary Question, together with other Parliamentary Questions which have been filed on this topic at the next available opportunity.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,221 lines we hold for Edwin Tong Chun Fai, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 45.
“Yes, I was going to respond to Ms Hazel Poa's second question. Again, as I said just now, I am not able to and I am not going to speak on behalf of Income. But the Member did make a point and she suggested in her speech that the statement, which I got her to confirm earlier, that capital resiliency following the transaction was misleading. That is the point I was trying to make. Earlier on, we agreed that that is the reference that the Member was making in paragraph 7. So, the point really is this, Ms Poa. The transaction is contemplated between an insurer, Income; and another insurer, Allianz. It is also proposed that following the transaction, the plan was to optimise capital. One of the ways in which it was going to be done was to re-insure a portion or a portfolio of Income's risk. Taken together, the statement, therefore, that after the transaction is carried out, its capital resiliency would be improved is, in my view, not misleading. That was the explanation I gave to the Member. I also explained to the Member that we could improve capital resiliency in a number of different ways such that even after capital reduction, we could still have an adequate capital adequacy ratio.”
“Thank you, Mr Ong. I had mentioned a series of factors that we looked at, one of which is the lack of structural protection. So, this is taken in the context of the suite of terms as well as the circumstances in which the capital reduction was done and the amount, were cumulatively the factors that we took into account, not any one single factor on its own.”
“Yes. Sir, the transaction is between two insurance companies and part of the arrangement following the transaction was a capital optimisation exercise. In the context of an insurance company, I think Members would understand that there is a need to maintain a capital adequacy ratio. The ratio is determined either by reference to the assets you have or the liabilities you carry. Either one of them can affect your capital adequacy ratio. And consequently, either one of them can affect your capital resiliency. If you increase capital, you can have a better capital adequacy ratio. Similarly, if you decrease your liabilities, you can also increase your capital resiliency and ratio. On that basis, this arrangement allows for Income to reinsure part of its portfolio of risk. And the moment it is able to reinsure that portfolio of risk, it would not have to maintain that level of capital to meet the capital adequacy ratio. So, in that context, even in the proposed plan for a capital reduction to take place, if you have a portion of the portfolio that has been reinsured and taken off your liability books, that will contribute towards a more healthy and positive capital adequacy ratio. I do not have details and specifics of the numbers and the plans, but that is the principle on which this was done. That is why we are able to say, as I did on Monday, that after evaluating the capital optimisation plan, MAS was satisfied that despite the capital reduction taking place, Income, the new entity, would still be projected to meet all its capital adequacy ratios with a healthy margin. I hope that explains. And that is why on Monday I said this statement is not misleading. 6.29 pm”
“Yes. Paragraph 7 talks about the need for the transaction to take place so that Income could build up capital resilience. The Member also spoke about capital buffers coming under pressure and questioned whether that statement is true. The Member also made the point, effectively, that the Member is not able to reconcile the capital reduction with the need for the proposed transaction to seek capital resiliency. Would I have accurately summarised the Member's contention?”
“The reasons we came round to this view, if I may reiterate, were the capital reduction occurring so soon after the exemption, the amount that was involved, the fact that there was no arrangement within the terms of the present transaction which would safeguard or ring-fence the advancement of Income's social mission, nor were there any structural protections in the terms of the proposed transaction that would allow us to have comfort that its social mission would be protected. We were also not clear what other adjustments or changes Income might be able to make thereafter to its portfolio, whether it would serve this area of underserved in the insurance business, trim its portfolio, change it altogether or reduce. There were also no controls there. So, cumulatively, these factors, taken in the context of this transaction, where Income would cede majority control, were the reasons why we felt in this case this was not acceptable. As to what is acceptable, it is not for us to speculate, and if the parties, as they have indicated publicly, wish to re-evaluate, reconsider, we will consider that when they have structured any new arrangements. Sir, finally, I want to address Ms Hazel Poa's speech. She makes the case that the 4 August 2024 statement by Income is misleading. I think the Member quoted the words "capital resilience" which I think it is paragraph 7 of the statement that she was reading from. Am I right?”
“And therefore, on that basis, it needed to then say, I would also have these surpluses, which I had accumulated before, brought into the new entity. It was on that basis that we granted the exemption for the surpluses to also flow through into the new corporate entity. Ms He also asked whether there is a link between surpluses and social mission. As I had explained earlier, I think we have to give a degree of flexibility to the entity charged with that social mission to decide how to apply it. In the context of Income, as it stood post-corporatisation, its majority shareholder was NE, also a co-operative. It also had a number of other smaller minority shareholders, amongst which were also co-operatives. In that context, we left it to them to decide how you want to carry out your social mission, how you would deploy the surpluses. You may offer migrant workers insurance; you might offer mental wellness insurance and so on. It is something that I think we need to give them a broad remit over, given especially that they have converted into a corporate entity, a point that I made on Monday as well. You cannot, on the one hand, say you can corporatise, but on the other hand, you still have to behave as if you are a co-operative entity. Sir, I hope that answers Ms He's questions around the surpluses and the link to the social mission. I would add, Sir, that it is not for me to say how Income ought to have structured its transactions with Allianz or with any other party. What we do know is, in this present arrangement, for the reasons I have set out, which I will briefly summarise in a moment, we were not comfortable that after this transaction, given the context in which it was done, that Income would be able to carry on with its social mission.”
“There were advantages that it felt it could avail themselves of, such as, for instance, there were limitations on the extent to which dividends could be declared by a co-op and that itself made it less attractive for investors, for strategic partners to come in to work with Income. It also needed the ability to broaden its capital base. I think there are some debates about what we mean by capital buffers, capital resiliency. I will address that in a moment. But what is important to bear in mind in relation to Ms He's question on representations and what was discussed in the context of the corporatisation and the exemption, Income said very clearly it wanted to do better in the insurance business. It emphasised that it would continue to do its social mission as before, based on a quote I read earlier, and that it would only change its legal form as far as its business was concerned. What is also important to bear in mind in the context of the exemption is that section 88 applies, as I explained, in the context of a social co-op seeking to wind up its business, to cease its business, stop altogether and then after paying off its debts and accounting for other charges, it will have surplus or it may have surpluses, which then comes into the consolidated fund. That is the raison d'etre behind section 88. In the context of Income, the co-operative, the raison d'etre, or purpose, is quite different. First, it was being liquidated and wound up, it was not ceasing its business. In fact, on the contrary, it was trying to do its business better in a corporate vehicle that would allow it to reach out to strategic partners, access capital and so on, to do its business better. It was fundamentally not winding up its business, not stopping.”
“This is how it looks at its social mission portfolio and I am not saying that it may not change down the road. Depending on the needs of society, that may well need to change. So, in some ways, you have got to give flexibility to the manner in which a social enterprise looks at its mission in the context of the industry that it is in and decides what specific products to raise. I think Ms He also asked whether one day it could become health insurance. I, as I said, I am not speaking for Income, but I would not see that it is so unconnected from its current life insurance business that it may well be covered. But it is something that I express no view on, save to say that I think we need to give some degree of flexibility and malleability to the concept. I want to also say that the point of applying for exemption from section 88, a point I alluded to earlier, Income did emphasise that it continues to remain strongly committed to its social mission of providing affordable, accessible and sustainable insurance to the underserved communities. In relation to what Mr Chua said, what Mr Parekh said, that definition by Income itself gives you some indication as to how they see the social mission and how they see themselves discharging that social mission. Whilst I am on the point about the exemption, Ms He raised a couple of points on the exemption and I would like to address them. To recap, I had explained previously the circumstances in which Income, the co-op, proposed to convert its legal status from a co-op into a corporate status.”
“It will uphold rather than diminish Singapore's consistent reputation as a hub for business that is open, transparent and rules-based. Mr Saktiandi asked whether and what steps have been taken to engage Allianz and if any engagement had been planned. Sir, MAS and MCCY, as I had explained, we sought to understand the plans and the proposed transactions. So, we obtained information, we studied them, and once we assessed and decided that it is not in the public interest to proceed with the deal, we thought it is better to take an open and transparent approach in the manner that I have outlined. Mr Neil Parekh and Mr Mark Lee raised some questions around social mission. I think Mr Chua, in particular, has related his own experience. Sir, it is very broad and I think Mr Chua's speech does acknowledge that it is sometimes in the nature of the way in which social mission has to be carried out and it also has to evolve to match the aspirations and the needs of each generation. So, by definition, there has got to be a level of flexibility, malleability, which allows the parties charged with their social mission to adjust and to take steps to adjust. In this case, parties would have heard from my Ministerial Statement that Income – and I think earlier on, Members heard Senior Minister of State Desmond Tan speak to that as well – had reiterated that it would discharge its social mission at the point of corporatisation and exemption and also at the point of this transaction. Specifically, in the case of Income, it has over the years been very clear in seeking to expand its social mission such as providing for the needs of persons with disability, migrant workers, low-income workers.”
“As I have explained, there are considerations because it is a live deal. There is price-sensitive information, market-sensitive information, but the moment we were aware as to what steps we were going to take, how we proposed to take them, we came here, made a Ministerial Statement and explained fully, and then tabled the Bill. We have made it clear that the Government does not have concerns over Allianz's standing or suitability to acquire a majority stake in Income. Allianz is a major global insurance company and asset manager, and we acknowledge that it can bring financial strength and expertise to Income. Our objections were to the structuring of the transaction and some of the terms of the deal, as I had explained on Monday. Second, we framed this Bill because we acknowledge that under the Insurance Act today, there is no provision explicitly which allows MAS to consider the views of MCCY in the case of an application relating to an insurer that is either a co-op or linked to a co-op. Therefore, we tabled the Bill, as I mentioned, narrowly to amend the Insurance Act to provide a clear statutory basis for MCCY's views to be taken into account. Third, as I mentioned, the amendments are scoped specifically to only apply to a licensed insurer that is subject to an application under sections 26 and 27 of the Insurance Act and where the licensed insurer is a co-op, has acquired the business of a co-op, or as substantial shareholder or effective controller which is a co-op. We are not seeking broad powers that cover general insurance transactions or of a broad remit in nature. Sir, we have chosen to act in this way because we feel that that is the most transparent and above-board manner.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Sir, on Monday, I made a Ministerial Statement, raising a number of points and explanations, which I do not propose to go back into. This afternoon, there have been a number of contentions concerning various parties and suggestions as to who knows what and at what stage and which party. Let me just be clear that I am not privy to any of Income or Allianz's thinking about the transaction or its deliberation and the views that they may have taken, in relation to or arising from the transaction. As I have explained on Monday, MCCY was given information, which it reviewed, looked at carefully and decided that it would not be in the public interest to allow this transaction to proceed. Thereafter, we discussed and proposed for this Bill to take effect so that MAS and the Minister overseeing MAS would have the ability to take on board MCCY's views in relation to this particular transaction. So, I hope that makes it quite clear as to where I am coming from when I give my answers today. There were also a number of Members who asked what happened behind the scenes, what steps were taken and whether or not some parties were approached. Let me first start by saying that the decision to take this step was not one that was taken lightly. It was after very careful, deliberate consideration and even after that, it was decided that we ought to do this in as narrow a way as possible, as I had explained in Parliament on Monday. In addition, the Government decided to act after we came to this conclusion and to do it in as transparent and as forthright a manner as possible. Let me explain. First, we decided to give a complete account of the basis of our objections and our views right here in Parliament.”
“I will have to check that with the relevant Ministry which is behind me. I will have a word and see whether that is possible, but I also want to make the point. You made the point earlier that we should consider the tax exemption because there are a variety of different sharing proportions for the incentive. I think the sharing incentive proportion is designed to reflect the fact that, precisely as I have said today, we have a village behind every athlete and the support structures are something that we value and the split formula that Ms Chandradas spoke about reflects that value – that everyone plays a part in the success of the athlete. It is not just a single source of success every time a medal is won. 3.21 pm”
“Sir, I would agree with the principle that we equalise our support for all athletes regardless of whether they are para athletes or able-bodied athletes and regardless of whether they take part in major games or otherwise across the entire spectrum. That has been our approach. That is why our ActiveSG academies now have the Para Sports Academy as well, and to the extent possible, we have NSAs where the para sports take part in the sport side by side with the able-bodied athletes. So, these are steps that we are taking to bridge the gap if there is one, but I would not necessarily say that our focus is only on making sure that the incentives are equalised because there is a danger in that which is the point I was making to you earlier, Prof Lim, that in trying to strive towards equality, you have missed the woods for the trees – which is where we are already today. Would you rather have equality or would you rather want substantive support that is being given to para athletes? I think the answer is pretty clear.”
“To Ms Poa's point, yes, we are working towards refurbishing old ones to build more courts, build more facilities and also having newer ones. I mentioned Toa Payoh, there is one in Punggol, Sengkang and various places. So, we are doing that. But obviously, you can almost never cater enough because each time you look at a badminton court – four persons on the court. So, I can understand the demand. I, as the Minister looking after sports, amongst the number one emails I get is precisely in the vein of what Ms Poa is asking for. Can we have more tennis courts? Can we have more facilities for badminton, for floorball, for tchoukball, and so on? In a sense, I look at it as a good thing – that we have been quite successful in encouraging Singaporeans to be active in sport and want to take part in sports. We will do our best to catch up in terms of facilities, but we are defined by a finite set of resources on this. So, I am sure Ms Poa understands. Nonetheless, we will work with facilities; we will work with schools to ensure that on the weekends at least, dual-use facilities are made available as much as possible to the public and in this way satisfy the demand that is building up. And that is a positive sign.”
“Most of you know that I look after a constituency at Marine Parade. One day, when I was there a couple of months ago, after the Olympics, I saw a young boy. He tied a string to a plastic bag and he was running up and down the beach with the plastic bag. And I asked him what he was doing and he said, "I am kitefoiling." [Laughter.] So, it has that power to engender, to inspire and to break new ground. And I think that is the power of sports. It is something that the medium of sports is uniquely positioned to give us and we thank our athletes and all of the supporters, the many stakeholders in this room, in this Chamber today – family, friends, officials, coaches – everyone in that village or town that I spoke about. We thank all of you very much for being here, for being part of this journey and we look forward to working with you even more, even further, as we take Singapore sports further forward. Thank you very much, Sir. [Applause.]”
“It does not directly go towards helping those in development, which is what we want to do with a broader spend, so that we can reach and target a broader base mass appeal and developing a pipeline so that more athletes, para as well as able-bodied athletes, can reach the apex of their sport and reach their aspiration. That is the thinking that we have in the Government on why we leave the private sector and Tote Board to deal with the incentives while we make commitments here and now and in the long-term on facilities that overall lift the base of sports entirely. So, I hope that clarifies the position on the incentive schemes. Finally, as I conclude, Mr Speaker, Sir, the programmes that we have spoken about, that I have outlined in my earlier speech, they show us that there is a very clear commitment towards a comprehensive plan that is bold, ambitious and, in some cases, also unprecedented, in the context of Home of Team Singapore. These plans, we believe, will help us lift the entire base altogether. We will find a new baseline and in order to do this, we want to permanently shift the baseline so that we are no longer looking at vagaries or depending on each year, whether there are certain sports that may be in major games or otherwise, performances may then vary. We want to permanently shift the baseline upwards. My colleagues and I at MCCY are convinced that the best years of sports lie ahead of us. I thank everyone for supporting this Motion today, for believing in our athletes and, in particular, I thank all our athletes for allowing us to believe, through you, that dreams can come true. Mr Ong Hua Han, in his speech earlier, spoke about how we have not even heard about kitefoiling until some months ago, before the Olympics.”
“In contrast, what the Government does is we look at a year-on-year, long-term master plan, like the DSMP, as an example. We cater for infrastructure upgrades, development. We look at facilities. We look at building up the academies, like ActiveSG Academies, the Para Sport Academy, the coaches, the specialist physiotherapists that we employ for para athletes, sports science, the programmes that I spoke about earlier in my speech, the various bursaries that we put together, like in SportCares bursaries, as I spoke about in my opening speech as well, to support the lower-income; and, of course, the spex programme, amongst others. These are all spendings that are committed and that, every year, are spent to improve the infrastructure and landscape for both para and disability sports as well as able-bodied sports. This is an investment that the Government is committed to. It is not if you win an award, not whether; but it is a commitment that we make. If you put aside sums and think about whether or not I need to provide for "x" number of gold medals each cycle, these are sums that will not be able to be deployed. So, we look at it differently. We decide that we want to invest these amounts, spend them, make a commitment and ensure that we have efficiency for the spend that we make. It is an assured amount every year, year-on-year, on a long-term masterplan. And more importantly, we also take the approach that when you have an incentive programme, it is good, and we applaud the various supporters and corporates who come forward to help us in this effort. It is very good. But it is also rewarding people who are more or less at the end of the journey winning a gold medal.”
“Assoc Prof Jamus Lim spoke about the experience in Canada. Let us not also forget that even as we look at trying to find parity, let us not forget where we start and where we are today in Singapore. Like Ms Chandradas says, Singapore is amongst the highest, if not the highest, in terms of the incentive scheme amounts in absolute terms. Assoc Prof Lim spoke about Canada, but I think Assoc Prof Lim would know that Canada's incentive for a Paralympic gold is $20,000. We are at $500,000. I am not sure whether Canada looks at the second or third golds as we do. Other countries, like in Japan, mentioned by Ms Chandradas, their gold is at $20,000; Korea is at $50,000; France is at $100,000; and Australia is at $15,000. So, let us not also miss the wood for the trees. We have been pushing the amounts up over the years. I can understand and appreciate entirely why Members have said let us find parity. Because there is, in fact, no difference between the way in which our para athletes train, put effort, make sacrifices as well as our Olympic athletes. But let us not also lose sight of the amounts in absolute terms and how much we support our athletes. I also want to explain why we have taken the position that we have left the incentive schemes to the private sector and to the Tote Board to handle. These awards, based on each major game, are set up and, as Members know, the games are cyclical. At each game, like the Olympics, there might be a gold medallist or there might not be a gold medallist. But the amounts that are committed will have to be put aside and have to be provided for, and you cannot use them, and because you cannot use them, you cannot deploy the funds elsewhere.”
“And as I said earlier, as we look forward towards the launch of the DSMP, we will make further announcements on what else we are doing to enhance the disability sport landscape. The second point I would like to respond to would be the incentive awards. Let me explain this with some context so that Members can understand. First of all, as Ms Usha Chandradas pointed out, this is put up by non-government entities. It is decided by them. They decide on the funding, the appropriate level, the structures and the terms on which this is done. Between the Olympic and the Paralympic structure, there are differences. But these differences do not mean one is necessarily better than the other. Let me explain. In the Olympics, for example, the first and only gold that is rewarded under the incentive programme is the first gold for $1 million. Under the Paralympic programme, it is $500,000 for each gold, but it goes up to three golds. So, it is different, not necessarily comparable in the same way. These are also decided by the private sector on a range of different considerations. They have to think in terms of whether this is sustainable, is this an incentive programme that drives the right behaviour and how long term can this be? Bearing in mind, for example, that if you compare the Paralympics with the Olympics, just in swimming alone, there are 141 Paralympic swimming events for which medals are awarded, as opposed to 37 in the Olympics. So, when the private sector, as well as Tote Board, looks at this, these are amongst the considerations that they have in mind. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim also spoke about equalising, and I think several other Members as well. With reference to some data, I think there was an article cited by Ms Usha Chandradas.”
“And I think what is needed for them is to gain greater understanding and empathy, and also being able to be equipped with how to deal with a situation when they see a person with disability, how do you interact, how do you make the first move, how do you break the ice and how do you come together and socialise and form a community. I think these are important steps that we will take and we believe that the platform of sports provides us a great way in which we can do this. Mr Keith Chua also noted that we can do more for persons with disabilities in the community. To this end, along with helping children, MOE has introduced a new SPED Physical Education teaching and learning syllabus earlier this month. It focuses on preparing SPED students for good health and life outcomes through lifelong sports participation. This early intervention can ensure that these children can access sports from a young age, cultivate a good habit and cultivate a culture for sustained and lifelong sports participation. Indeed, over the years, we have made good progress, introducing a range of disability sport programmes and initiatives. These have reached out to close to 20,000 persons with disabilities to date. They include the Learn to Play programme, the annual Play Inclusive campaign that I spoke about, the Inclusive Sport Festival, which has itself also been integrated into the mainstream Get Active Singapore. So, it is no longer just about normal ability sports, but also special ability sports within our mainstream programmes like Get Active Singapore, which is a very popular programme. We also have, as you heard me say in my speech earlier, launched the Parasport Academy. This was done in March 2022. And so far, there have been more than 400 participants across 10 sports today.”
“Thank you, Sir, and I would like to thank all our colleagues, Members in this House, for being united in your support for this Motion and also support for sports in Singapore as we look at the next bound and steps that we can take collectively together to get us to the next bound. I thank the various Members for their impassioned speeches. Mr Yip Hong Wing, Ms Poh Li San, for your thoughtful sporting suggestions. Assoc Prof Razwana, for reminding us that sports should always be fun. Ms Jean See, Ms Hazel Pua, for your support. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, for your impassioned interventions. And of course, Ms Denise Phua, who not just was passionate in her speech, but she is so passionate that she came in Team Singapore colours as well today. These are all great suggestions which my team and I will take back and we will consider thoughtfully and take on board in the course of looking at the proposals and policies that we will have to advance sports. I thought I would take up a response on two points which most of the Members have spoken about. And the first is on our disability sports landscape. Ms Denise Phua and Mr Keith Chua, in particular, noted that it is important to encourage children in our SPED schools to take up sports from a young age. We agree. Mr Ong Hua Han also suggested adopting a more structured approach to encouraging children with disabilities in mainstream schools to do sports. We agree. In addition, I think Mr Ong Hua Han also mentioned that we have to raise awareness and understanding. And I can see why, because our children do not have, from a young age, a bias.”
“Many turned up in full force to celebrate the open-top bus parades a couple of weeks ago. Some even turned up in Paris, on their own, to lend their support and voices in person. And we received many more countless messages from Singaporeans, cheering them on in spirit. I am sure our athletes appreciated every single one of these expressions of support.”
“It completely closed off her opponent's angles and frustrated all of her opponent's remaining shots. This move, which was brilliant, won Jeralyn the match. Eventually, she made it to the finals where she won the silver. Coach Yurnita had to judge not just what would work in the context of strategy in the match, but more importantly, whether in that situation, could Jeralyn pull it off. The coach's deep bond and understanding with Jeralyn allowed her to make the right call at the right time for the athlete. In the coach's own words, the both of them are "not just like friends; we are like family". I saw this myself at the Paralympics – Yurnita celebrated every success and cried every tear, along with Jeralyn. This deep connection and trust allowed them to navigate both triumphs and challenges successfully together. We are fortunate to have coaches like coach Yurnita as part of Team Singapore. Members might not know either that we had a very strong support team for Paris but sitting in Singapore. They were not even in Paris. They worked in Singapore, operating from a different time zone. These included our sport scientists as well as our medical team. They worked off videos and live data that were sent across, sometimes overnight, from Paris. They worked round the clock to analyse the data, make suggestions to ensure that our athletes peak, stay at their peak, and were able to compete in a high-pressure and unrelenting environment – everything from sleep to nutrition, physiotherapy to psychology. They and many more are the invaluable unseen force behind our Team Singapore. I thank all of you very much for these efforts. Finally, I also want to thank the many Singaporeans who supported our athletes through thick and thin.”
“We all know the saying that it takes a village to raise a child. But I think it takes more than a village – in this case, maybe a whole town – to raise an athlete to compete and challenge at the highest levels. This includes their families, the coaches, trainers, physiotherapists, nutritionists, psychologists, sports administrators and even sport associations. All of them collectively play an important role, creating an environment that enables our athletes to thrive. This list goes on. I would therefore like to express my deep appreciation to these people who are often unnamed, work quietly behind the scenes in the background, no fuss, to make things happen perfectly for our athletes. They are a key part of Team Singapore, and an integral part of our success at these Olympics and Paralympics. And it is indeed a victory founded on the Olympic spirit of "togetherness". Their collective efforts have enabled our athletes to better themselves. And I thought it would be useful to give come colour to what I am saying with some examples for Members. First, let me talk about coach Yurnita. She is Jeralyn's coach and has has been for many years. But she is not just a coach, she is also Jeralyn's closest confidant, throughout her long journey. Their relationship spans many years, and they were involved in countless competitions – locally as well as abroad. At the Paralympics, at the end of her quarter-finals match, Jeralyn was up against the world number one in the quarter finals. We saw a very astute strategic suggestion that coach gave to Jeralyn which Jeralyn executed to perfection. From a defensive position, she pulled off a stunning shot, unerring in accuracy and perfect in weight.”
“Pin Xiu is not only Singapore's most decorated Paralympian, having won double gold in the S2 Women's 50-metre and 100-metre backstroke events, over the past three editions of the Paralympics. She has effectively made these events her own – six gold medals over three editions of the Paralympics, 50 metres and 100 metres. Remarkedly, Pin Xiu's first gold medal was won 16 years ago in 2008 in Beijing – a champion in every sense. But perhaps what is more remarkable is how she uses her standing and her sporting achievements to champion causes that she believes in. Pin Xiu has made extensive contributions to our nation, as a passionate advocate on social issues – on youths, on sports, on inclusion for persons with disabilities. In fact, just over the weekend, she was out at the Purple Parade! Her stint as a former Nominated Member of Parliament, a current National Youth Council member, and a member of the SDSC Board among others – that is a testament of her selfless service to the community in a broad and diverse range of different sectors. I want to add my congratulations to all our medal winners. You have done us all very proud. [Applause.] Mr Speaker, I am sure many in this House as well as fellow Singaporeans, would have watched our athletes compete on television. But we only saw the tip of the iceberg or the sharp end of the spear as it were. An event like athletics or swimming can be over in 10 seconds. But we saw Team Singapore give their all in every event they competed in, leaving nothing behind in the cauldron of competition in Paris. But it is not just their efforts alone. Behind each of them lies an entire support system that has enabled them to be at their very best against the very best in the world.”
“After several years of hard work and winning three editions of the World Boccia Cup in 2023 and 2024, she is now the world's top-ranked boccia player in her class. She qualified for the Paralympics this year, and as you would know, she came back with the historic first medal in boccia, winning the silver. I would add that she was a whisker away from the gold – it went down to the very last ball. But I am sure this will only inspire and motivate Jeralyn even more in future editions of the Paralympics. [Applause.] Second, our Olympic bronze medallist, kitefoiler, Max Maeder. Max's story is about courage and sportsmanship and being an inspirational role model for our youths in Singapore. I am sure all of you will remember that Max gave Singapore a wonderful birthday present on National Day this year, winning the bronze medal. At 17 years old and making his debut at the Olympics, Max was not just the youngest Singaporean athlete to win an Olympic medal. He was also the youngest in the world to win an individual sailing medal at the Olympics ever. We saw his determination and sportsmanship when he came up against world-class opponents, older and more experienced than him. But Members, if you get a chance to have a chat with this fine young gentleman, you will be struck by his passion, his maturity, and his humility at his young age. Max's story shows that we can, and indeed, every Singaporean must dare to dream big and chase the rainbow, no matter the odds, and of course, as he has shown, no matter the age. Third, Yip Pin Xiu – our double-gold medallist in swimming. Pin Xiu's story is familiar. It is one of consistency and longevity at the highest level, but also about selfless service to the community and to our nation.”
“I had the privilege of attending the 2024 Paris Olympics and Paralympics, where I witnessed firsthand our athletes' determination and resolve, even as they stood up against formidable opponents. Not all our Olympians and Paralympians present today won a medal in Paris. But they are all winners. They have all fought hard in the toughest of arenas and pushed themselves above and beyond their limits. As Jesse Owens, another Olympic legend, once said, "The only victory that counts is the one over yourself." And our athletes have achieved this victory. They have not just represented our nation with distinction, but they have conquered themselves. And we thank, and we honour, Team Singapore athletes for being our source of inspiration and for being our role models. Overall, our Team Singapore Contingent had an illustrious campaign. They came home with two gold medals, a silver and a bronze, two national records and two personal bests. We also brought back our best ever medal haul at the Paralympics. And amongst our three medallists, two of them, Jeralyn and Max, made it to the podium at the first time of asking, on their debut. Mr Speaker, allow me to say a little more about our medallists who have made us tremendously proud. What resonates with us, though, goes well beyond tangible medal achievements. More important is the resilience we saw in their attitudes and the grace with which they have conducted themselves and flown our flag so proudly. First, we have Jeralyn Tan, our first Paralympic silver medallist for boccia. Her story is about conviction and perseverance, sticking through the tough times. In her early years of competing, she faced multiple setbacks and losses. But she pressed on.”
“They have engendered a sense of "togetherness" that is so important for a young nation like Singapore to experience as part of our nation-building. The adjectives "faster", "higher" and "stronger" are known as comparative adjectives in English grammar. They are commonly used to compare one person or a team against another person or another team. But there is another deeper dimension to this, especially with the addition of the word "together" in the motto. Let me illustrate this with an example. Forty years ago, in the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics, American sprint legend, Carl Lewis, won the men's 100-metre sprint with a time of 9.99 seconds. In 2024, the same event was won by American sprinter, Noah Lyles, at 9.79 seconds. In fact, he won it by 5000th of a second. I am not sure the human eye or brain could process it. But more importantly, the slowest qualifying time for the men's 100-metre final at Paris 2024 was 9.91 seconds, which means if legend Carl Lewis had run the same race in 2024 as he did in 1984 to win the gold, he would not have even qualified for the Finals in Paris. This, Sir, is progress for athletics and it is also progress for the human race. When we compete in a friendly and fair manner repeatedly over time, everyone in the field improves. Fair and friendly competition is good for everyone. We progress, together. Sir, 33 of Singapore's best athletes competed at the 2024 Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games. They competed against the world's best, carrying the weight of our nation's hopes and dreams. They stood out, not just as individuals, but also represented Singapore's collective aspirations.”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That this House congratulates our Team Singapore Olympians and Paralympians, in particular our medallists Ms Jeralyn Tan, Mr Maximilian Maeder and Ms Yip Pin Xiu, for their achievements at the 2024 Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games." Sir, let me start by warmly welcoming our Team Singapore Olympians and Paralympians, together with their families and their loved ones, coaches, and other sporting officials, seated here in the Chamber and also in the Gallery this afternoon. Welcome! [Applause.] Sir, every four years, the Olympic and Paralympic Games issue a challenge to all nations to send forth their best athletes, men and women alike, to showcase the heights of human potential through the common medium of sports which transcends all creed, colour and language. The original motto of the Olympics was adopted in 1894 and coined by the Founder of the modern Olympic Games, Pierre de Coubertin. It is "citius", "altius" and "fortius" in Latin – and I hope I have not butchered it. Or as we know it better in English: "faster", "higher", "stronger". What is less known is that after 127 years, in 2021, the motto was slightly modified to "citius, altius, fortius, communiter". "Communiter" is Latin for "together". So, the current motto of the Olympics is really "faster, higher, stronger, together". "Together" is also why we are here today in this House to pass this Motion to celebrate our Olympians and Paralympians. They are with us in this House observing the proceedings. We thank them and their loved ones for their presence. But more importantly, we thank them for bringing us together as a community, as a nation, in a way that only they can, through sports.”
“The safety of ActiveSG gym users is our top priority. SportSG has implemented various measures to ensure that Singaporeans remain safe while using gym facilities. First, on-duty Fitness Instructors (FIs) regularly move around ActiveSG gyms and guide users on the correct use of equipment if they observe any unsafe practices. ActiveSG gyms also display notices on the proper use of equipment to prevent fitness injuries. Second, new ActiveSG gym users are encouraged to approach FIs for a gym orientation to familiarise themselves with the gym’s rules and equipment. Third, those with pre-existing medical conditions are strongly advised to complete the Get Active Questionnaire (GAQ) and seek medical advice before engaging in high-intensity physical activities. These advisories are included in the ActiveSG Gym Rules and Regulations displayed at all gym entrances. While ActiveSG gym visitorship has increased, the number of fitness injuries reported is comparable to those in previous years. In the past year, there were 111 reported cases of fitness injuries across all 28 ActiveSG gyms. This is one in 40,000 of ActiveSG’s total gym visitorship. Eighteen percent of these injuries were reported by those aged 12 to 17, 63% by those aged 18 to 54, and 19% by those aged 55 and above. These generally correspond to the age profile of ActiveSG gym visitors. We will continue to monitor fitness injuries at ActiveSG facilities and ensure that gym users exercise safely.”
“There have been no approvals given to any foreign purchasers to acquire any GCB since 2021, in any capacity, whether personal or otherwise. For the period from 2012 to 2021, there were five approvals given under the RPA for acquisition of GCBs by foreigners (PRs), and of those five GCBs, two were inheritance cases. This was stated in Parliament on 2 August 2022. Thus, in summary, (a) since 2021, there have been no approvals given to any foreigners to purchase any GCB; (b) since 2019, there have been no approvals given to any licensed trust company where the beneficiaries are foreign to purchase any GCB.”
“Foreign individuals, including Permanent Residents (PRs) and foreign entities, who wish to acquire landed residential property in Singapore must seek approval under the Residential Property Act (RPA). This is regardless of whether the purchase is made by the individual or entity directly, or through any vehicle, including a trust company. Singapore Citizens are not required to seek approval under the RPA to acquire landed residential property. In cases where the property is held through a licensed trust company, approval under the RPA is not required if the purchaser can show that the beneficiaries are Singaporean. The Singapore Land Authority (SLA) tracks all cases where approval is required under the RPA where the purchaser is foreign and, in the case of licensed trust companies, where the beneficiaries are foreign. Beyond that, SLA does not collect general data on landed residential properties that are acquired through trust companies. Based on SLA’s records over the last five years from 2019 to date, no approvals were granted under the RPA for a trust company to acquire a Good Class Bungalow (GCB) to hold on trust for foreign beneficiaries. As such, any GCB acquired during this time through a trust company were for Singaporean beneficiaries. As has been made clear in Parliament, the Government takes a very strict approach when granting approvals for foreigners to own landed residential properties within mainland Singapore. Only PRs are allowed to purchase with approval and applicants are assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration factors, such as their economic contribution to Singapore and whether they have a strong Singapore nexus.”
“The Skills Framework for Arts is intended to create a common skills language for the arts education sector, instead of being specific to artforms. The work functions, skills, competencies and benchmarks have, therefore, been articulated broadly, so that they can cater to different settings, artforms and student profiles. Examples of these technical skills and competencies include artform pedagogy, arts curriculum design and vendor and partnership management for arts educators, and artform history and culture and project management for arts researchers. Approaches to arts education and research will vary across and even within artforms. Users of the Skills Framework, whether they are individuals, employers or training providers, should customise the information provided in the Framework to their specific contexts. To illustrate this, the National Arts Council (NAC) and SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) have included real-world examples of how these general competencies are applied by arts educators, contextualised to their own artforms and informed by their artistic practices. These case studies were drawn from a study by the National Institute of Education that was commissioned by NAC as part of the Framework development process. NAC and SSG will review the Framework periodically to ensure that it remains relevant and applicable to the industry and our practitioners.”
“The pilot run of the Overseas Humanitarian Assistance Tax Deduction Scheme (OHAS) is purposefully scoped to apply only to overseas emergency humanitarian assistance, a cause which resonates with many Singaporeans, rather than a broader range of causes. This approach is in line with the current policy framework and is intended to strike a balance between encouraging overseas giving while ensuring that our local charity sector continues to receive the necessary support. The Government will assess the OHAS at the end of its four-year pilot as time is needed to gather sufficient and relevant data on the outcomes of the pilot scheme. The OHAS pilot will be evaluated based on various metrics, including uptake, its impact on giving to both local and overseas causes from Singaporeans, and qualitative feedback from designated charities.”
“Thank you, Sir. I would just like to say that Mr Leong has been working for longer than I have been, in the financial sector. You know that this is an arrangement, this is a deal, and the parties submit proposals or plans to MAS, socialise them with MAS. The Member cannot expect this to be then made public to everyone. Income has obligations to its shareholders as well, and this is a step that happens after the transaction is completed. They have not even applied to approve the transaction. So, Mr Leong, be circumspect about making allegations that parties, whether the Government or Income, could be more open or are withholding information, because there is a due process as to how this is done. You do not go out there and produce information about a proposal when the transaction has not even been approved. So, I hope Mr Leong sees it in that perspective.”
“So, the first available opportunity, we have come to Parliament, explained it in a Ministerial Statement, the background as well as the steps moving forward and then tabling a Bill, which we will put in in a few moments, for a debate on Wednesday, as much time as possible in the context given to Members, given that this is a live transaction and we cannot leave this state of uncertainty pending. So, I hope Mr Leong appreciates that that is the scenario that we are in and that there is no question of any information being withheld, either from Parliament or from Singaporeans.”
“Sir, Mr Leong should not mischaracterise what happened. I explained it in some detail in my speech and I hope that the Member will not mischaracterise it by suggesting that information has been withheld. On 6 August, we were here. We explained why we believed that it is important for Income to have the ability to find and make arrangements for a partnership. But as the Member knows, the transaction had not been approved. It is being considered. We then got information from MAS, we shared the information and, as you heard me say earlier, this is how the Government works. We studied the information carefully, went through, understood the transaction and its impact, understood it from a financial perspective, understood it from a social mission perspective. Then, after coming to a view that it would not be in the public interest for this to proceed, we had to decide what is the best way to deal with this, to handle this, having regard to the fact that the Insurance Act gives MAS the ability to look at transactions from a financial or prudential perspective, but not from this angle, which is the views of the MCCY Minister overseeing co-operatives. So, we had to reach a view as to not just that it is not in the public interest to proceed, but what we would do about it, which I am sure Mr Leong appreciates, is equally important. This is, after all, a live transaction, it is going on and there is market-sensitive information as well.”
“I thank Ms He for the question. The short point is this: that a withdrawal must be seen in the context of several other factors and there was a plan. And the plan is to optimise capital and not so much just to withdraw per se. So, when you optimise capital, you can do it in a number of ways. In the context of an insurance company, maybe redeploy reinsurance, for example, to remove some of the risks and therefore you need to maintain less capital to deal with buffers. These are some examples. I am not saying that this is what happened in this case, but these are some reasons why you might have a capital optimisation which provides for withdrawal but still not compromise the longer-term financial sustainability of the entity. And I think the Member heard me mention earlier that on MAS' assessment, even after the withdrawal, over a three-year period, the capital adequacy requirements of the new entity will still have to pass muster. So, these are factors that they take into account in looking at this. I take the point that these are discussions that obviously ought to be had with NE, moving forward, as to which types of proposals that maintain and allow us to fulfil the social mission can be countenanced. These are discussions for the future.”
“As to what would work, I had ventured that in my answer to Mr Liang earlier. For example, you might ringfence products using proceeds or surplus from the co-operative, as one example. Or you might have terms contractually even without majority shareholding, which oblige the parties to operate in a particular way to fulfil social missions. So, these are some examples of what they might be. But as to what exactly such a deal should look like, I think that would be speculative and I would not go into that. If the parties decide, at some juncture, that they want to reconsider this proposal and resubmit a proposal, we will consider it afresh at that point in time.”
“Sir, I spent quite a bit of my Statement explaining the sequence of events and explaining what we knew as of 6 August and what we knew after 6 August. I hope the Member has taken that into consideration and into account. And what we knew after 6 August allowed us to look at it cumulatively. On its own, as I mentioned my speech, losing board majority, losing shareholder majority were not itself factors which allowed us to reach a view that it was not in the public's interest. And the Member would appreciate that it is a balancing consideration. On the one hand, there is a strategic interest in wanting the partnership to strengthen Income, to ensure that it will remain competitive. Yes, you lose board majority and you lose shareholding majority, but you take that in the round and on balance. But what we discovered after 6 August, with a substantial capital extraction, shortly after the exemption was granted in 2023, of such a substantial amount, were factors which then tipped the balance. And then we said, as I mentioned in my speech, cumulatively, these factors caused us to have pause and we decided to review it in greater detail, and we realised that this was not something that we should see through as a matter of public interest. So, I hope that explains the sequence of events and that Mr Giam does not see the shadows which do not exist in this case. It is about what we knew on 6 August and what we said, and even if the Member looked at the Hansard transcripts, what we said on 6 August was in relation to overarching purpose as strategic intent of Income looking for a partner, not so much that we knew the terms of this and we were talking about the terms of this on 6 August. I hope that makes that clear for Mr Giam.”
“That is how we would work, to answer your point about having a goalkeeper.”
“Mr Leong made a reference to the Sitting in August and also some public views on the transaction. I was not here in August, but I have since read the transcripts and understand what the Member had said. There were a number of views that were put out like, this transaction should not go on because the shares were supposed to be not redeemable or that it cannot be sold. None of these apply in this case. And I think the Member heard me explain earlier the background to why and how I answered the Leader of Opposition's query. And the point really is that it is in the interest of Income in 2022 to have corporatised, I explained that, and for it to use this corporate vehicle to look at possibilities for partnerships, which it has now done and they found Allianz in this case. As I said, the objection is not to Allianz as an entity or to the financial suitability of its plans per se, but rather the questions that we have decided which followed after we reviewed the information, as the Member heard Minister Chee say earlier. So, I would add to that by saying that is exactly how, when the Member mentioned the goalkeeper, this works. MAS would not share all and sundry information. The Member cannot expect that every time information about a potential application, an acquisition or a deal is proposed, is made, and information given to MAS that it is shared with all and sundry. That is not how MAS works. But, in this case, after they realised that there are various issues which MCCY might be concerned about, they then shared the relevant information with us. Collectively, we looked at it and came to a view, as a Government, on what would serve the public interest. And, in this case, we decided that it would not serve the public interest to allow this to proceed.”
“I am not sure Ms Poa heard my Statement or understood it. Let me explain the key points. There is no question of misleading. The deal, on its own, was priced appropriately; the terms were put up. And as I had mentioned, even after the capital extraction, the financial viability, the capital adequacy requirements and ratios will be satisfied. That was the framework in which this was proceeded with. And NE and Income, as I also explained, believed in good faith that this strategic partnership would strengthen Income as an entity to allow it to compete in the insurance business with the benefit of a partner like Allianz. We have a different view of that for reasons which are not associated with the financial viability or sustainability of the proposal. So, there is no misleading as far as this is concerned. But we believe that if you were to look at the representations that were given in the context of the corporatisation and the exemption exercise, we think that this goes counter to that arrangement and we have a different opinion from NE and Income as to its ability to still continue to carry out its social mission. And as I said, cumulatively with other factors which we have also seen, such as the lack of structures in the agreement to protect the social mission or to advance it, and also coupled with the fact that it would no longer have majority control at the shareholding and also at the board level. So, it is taken in the round. But there is no question that there has been any misleading. All of these facts were as disclosed. We have just taken a view of them differently from NE and Income as to its ability to carry out its social mission thereafter.”
“And so, in that respect, taken as a whole, the exemptions were considered to be suitable and granted, so that Income can carry on and will be able to take advantage of the capital surpluses in its new vehicle. In terms of future steps that Mr Goh mentioned, I mentioned in my Statement that we would look at the possibility of amendments to the CSA to look at such scenarios where a co-operative converts into a corporate vehicle and what are some of the measures that can be taken. We will explore all of this when we look at the CSA in detail.”
“Sir, I have explained in some detail the background to the corporatisation exercise as well as the exemption that was granted in 2022 and 2023. Let me just reiterate that we felt that it was suitable at that point in time, because Income is involved in the insurance business. It essentially is competing with large players around the world and in Singapore and it also has to maintain a substantial capital base. That is the requirement under the Insurance Act and by MAS. And the current co-operative, or at that time, current co-operative structure, was not conducive to it. For example, it made investments or strategic partnerships with a co-op less attractive. There were some restrictions on how much dividend could be declared, out of which year's profits and there was also a limit to it and so on. These limitations do not apply to a corporate entity. And so, these amongst others, were the reasons why we supported Income when they approached us and discussed their plans with us. In terms of the exemption, as I had explained, if Income was going to be wound up and no longer continuing with its business, obviously, section 88 would apply. It applies in all other cases – the fund with the surplus after you pay off liabilities would be put into the CSLA. But as I had explained, this was not a scenario where Income was going to be liquidated, wound up and cease its business. In fact, it was carrying on the same business, with the assurance that it would see to its social mission, in a sense, in a new skin, in a corporate vehicle set-up, but continuing with the same business, fundamentally.”
“I had explained earlier that MCCY was not aware of the terms of the transaction or indeed of the planned cash remittance which includes the capital extraction until after the 6 August Parliamentary Sitting. It was at that juncture, and I think Minister Chee shared the circumstances in which MAS shared the information with MCCY, which I also covered in my Statement, and thereafter we decided to intervene, based on what we found out from the terms of the transaction as disclosed at the point in time.”
“But in the context of those representations – building up its surplus, share capital base and so on – to come forward now and to ask for it to be extracted so soon and at this amount, after the exercise was completed, in our view, runs counter to the premises on which the exemption was granted. That is why in this case we have stepped in. But moving forward, which I think is the thrust of your broad point, there are a number of ways in which a corporate can still remain a social enterprise in the way in which it conducts its business.”
“I thank Mr Liang for the question. Income today is no longer a co-op and I have explained in my speech why it had taken steps to become a corporate entity. And because it is now a corporate entity, we must allow Income to operate like a company with autonomy in how it pursues business decisions, how it makes its plans and its financial arrangements and so on, as a corporate vehicle. But a corporate vehicle can also be a social enterprise within this framework. For example, if you ask how this could be done, for example, ring-fencing some of the products which I mentioned earlier, which serves a segment of society, ring-fencing this to ensure that whatever business you conduct, you will always be in a particular segment of looking after this underserved segment of society at a lower cost. For instance, Mr Liang would recall that I spent some time explaining the background to the corporatisation and the exemption. So, going back to this specific case, when the exemption was granted, the surplus funds of about S$2 billion, instead of going to the CSLA which would have applied for the benefit of all co-ops in Singapore, was transferred into Income, the entity. If this arrangement was not being proposed, Income was free to use this surplus as it has been doing, to carry out the social mission, it would embark on business obviously and it must meet the usual capital adequacy requirements and so on, but it would be able to exercise some discretion over this surplus. That is how we saw it and that is why the exemption was given.”
“We support the co-ops in a number of ways, through enhancing the work that they do, supporting them through changes in the CSA that helps them in their business, that allows them to evolve and keep up with the times, and also has a fund that I mentioned, the CSLA, which MCCY and the Registrar manages and administers. This fund, from time to time, helps co-ops with training of personnel and showing that they are the best people running each of the co-ops, and on occasion also sets up a fund like we have done recently, just earlier this year, on the Empowering Communities Fund, which helps to look after a specific segment of society, that is funded from the CSLA. So, this is one reason we maintain the CSLA, to look at how we can benefit co-ops as a whole in Singapore.”
“I thank Mr Zhulkanain for the two clarifications that he seeks. The first is on Allianz and whether or not we have foreclosed the possibility of a future transaction, whether with Allianz or any other partner. As I have said in my speech, the answer is no. By all accounts, Allianz has put forward a credible, sound proposal and from a financial perspective it makes sense for Income to look at an entity that has global presence, strong networks and it is able to enter into it with a view towards a long-term strategic partnership. On financial and prudential reasons alone, let me make clear, there is no reason not to accept this arrangement. The grounds that I have set up relate to the representations that were made at the corporatisation exercise, the exemption that was granted and the circumstances in which now it is proposed for capital to be extracted. Those were the reasons. So, do not read into this as suggesting that we are not open to a foreign entity partnering with Income or indeed, whether it is Allianz or indeed, any other entity. So, I hope that answers the first of the Member's questions. In relation to co-ops, they come under my Ministry. There are a variety of different co-ops and there are NTUC co-ops which helps look after the underserved workers. There are also campus co-ops where, Members might remember, the National University of Singapore, Nanyang Technological University and Ngee Ann, they all run co-ops for the benefit of students. There are also co-ops which help the sectors of society which need special attention. For example, Running Hour is a co-op that helps inclusivity in sports. There is also a co-op that looks after the employment of persons with disabilities. So, these are the different types of co-ops that come under the framework.”