Foo Cexiang
Singapore
“Thank you, Speaker. And I thank the Minister. We celebrate Mother's Day over the weekend. I said it once and I will say it again – our parents of adopted children are super parents and the moms are certainly super moms.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for her answer. With the expansion of the licensing regime for the MEA, can I also confirm that the considerations she has just described, in terms of Police screening, will also apply to the new category of MEs which, today, they are not licensed under the Act?”
“With a great number of residents involved, much more could have gone. What expectations would they have? Would a vocal minority dominate the room? Would they be able to agree on the process to find a way forward? I thought about each and every one of these concerns and decided to proceed. Not because I had all the answers.”
“I declare that I work in the logistics arm of the port. I have two clarifications. First, will the measures to support the domestic transport and critical sector extend to the logistics and supply chain sector, such as the hauliers, as well as the port, because this is certainly a critical sector during this period?”
“Where heritage is lived and shared, it will become a bridge between the past and the present and the future generations – and together, we will achieve my vision for Tanjong Pagar, Tiong Bahru, to be a living community where every generation finds its place in the Singapore story.”
“However, there will be many Singaporeans who do not live to 95 years, perhaps even more so than those who do. So, my question is, will MND consider a scheme for these seniors, which allows them to purchase a short-term 2-room Flexi flat with minimum lease term that covers the youngest owner up to age 85?”
The complete record
Every one of 82 lines we hold for Foo Cexiang, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 2.
“Thank you, Speaker. And I thank the Minister. We celebrate Mother's Day over the weekend. I said it once and I will say it again – our parents of adopted children are super parents and the moms are certainly super moms. So, I would like to ask the Ministry whether it will consider the perspective that, notwithstanding the adopted mom not being the birth mom, would we not give them more time to bond with their baby or with their child? After all, the Ministry of Social and Family Development's policy is also to encourage parents who would like to adopt a second child, a gap of nine months from the first child, precisely so that they can bond more with the first child.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for her answer. With the expansion of the licensing regime for the MEA, can I also confirm that the considerations she has just described, in terms of Police screening, will also apply to the new category of MEs which, today, they are not licensed under the Act?”
“With a great number of residents involved, much more could have gone. What expectations would they have? Would a vocal minority dominate the room? Would they be able to agree on the process to find a way forward? I thought about each and every one of these concerns and decided to proceed. Not because I had all the answers. But because I trusted my residents. I trusted that they would recognise the heart and efforts of their fellow residents, our community partners and the Government agencies; that they would see that this is something special we are creating in Tanjong Pagar-Tiong Bahru and be prepared to give it a chance as we adjust and improve along the way till we get it. And that, Mr Speaker, is what building a democracy of deeds is all about. It starts with trust and ends with action. [Applause.]”
“We need strong coordination to ensure that the ambition permeates the whole-of-Government to develop a coherent agenda and programme which residents can refer to and see where they want to contribute. Third, skills. We need public officers skilled at facilitating such partnerships with citizens. MCCY has been building this up through the SG Partnerships Office (SGPO), but we will need much more investment. MCCY can also work with partners, such as IPS to build a wider pool of skilled, not-for-profit, community-based facilitators. Let me move on to the role of the citizen. As each of the initiatives I have highlighted show, the citizens have a very involved, time and effort intensive. It is not days, but weeks and months of effort. It is not raising suggestions, but detailing solutions, assessing trade-offs, convincing fellow citizens. It is not "I" versus the Government, or "I" versus my neighbour, but "we" – all together. For every resident in Tanjong Pagar-Tiong Bahru who has participated in each of the initiatives, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Thank you for stepping up, leading the way and showing us all how it can be done. Finally, the role of the Member of Parliament. Sir, for each of these initiatives I have championed, I have been under no illusions. It does not matter if the proposal came from my resident. The buck stops with me. When the residents came to me about removing the blue bins, a dozen scenarios of how it could go wrong crossed my mind. Residents complaining about being inconvenienced. Littering bins overflowing. Original blue bin locations becoming littering slots. Low participation rate during the collection events. Volunteers getting disillusioned and abandoning the pilot. The same for the PB pilot.”
“We scheduled the PB pilot to run alongside the NRP process in Spottiswoode Park, so that all the implementing agencies, as well as our residents can experience how these can work side by side, and the difference in their level of engagement and their appetite for each of them. With the findings from the Spottiswoode Park NRP+PB, I hope HDB can consider enhancing NRP to also include a segment for PB – so that residents across Singapore have the base layer of NRP improvements, as well as a PB component where they dream, propose and vote for their own ideas. Third, how we conduct recycling and other sustainability initiatives. I am similarly heartened that NEA and CORA, the recycling operator, also agreed to partner us for our "Bye Bye Blue Bins" pilot. This boldness to try out something different is refreshing and invigorating for residents who are prepared to step up. Instead of a one-size fits all approach, where waste is centrally collected and recycling contamination relatively high, a localised recycling approach may be much more effective in Singapore. Mr Speaker, developing community regeneration stations, incorporating PB as a component under NRP, facilitating localised sustainability models – these are all concrete steps to build Singapore as a democracy of deeds. I am sure there are several other areas. Many, if not all of our Government agencies have a key role to play. However, for it to happen, I believe we need MCCY to lead the whole-of-Government charge in three key areas. First, ambition. We need to set out a clear ambition – to go beyond funding, to deeply involved partnerships, where the agencies work closely with residents to design and activate their neighbourhoods. Second, we need coordination.”
“Currently, the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) tenders out such properties using the price-quality system when they want the properties to be managed in ways that address other objectives, such as heritage rejuvenation. This has led to high-quality lifestyle hubs, such as New Bahru and Kada, which require professionalised operations and commercial viability to run. I would like to advocate for an alternative model as well. One where the Government invites ground-up proposals for state properties – proposals which produce social impact. It can be a community hub for youths or a heritage living space, perhaps, even a creative arts museum, like what my resident Warren envisaged for the Tiong Bahru Air Raid Shelter. They can become community regeneration stations. Instead of selecting a proposal based on rental bid, the Government chooses proposals based on the proposal's potential social impact. The selected proposals are awarded the use of the property or site for a given tenure free of charge. Under this model, we may see more social enterprises and ground-up collectives being awarded the use of such properties. Sir, we have over 2,600 state properties in Singapore: former schools, community centres, camps, many of some heritage significance, many located within residential estates. Imagine the energy that will be brought to our neighbourhoods if just a segment of them are converted to such community regeneration stations. Second, how we conduct Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP). I am very glad that HDB agreed to partner us for the PB in Spottiswoode Park. I see this as the first step in seeing how we can potentially incorporate such a process into NRP.”
“But let me share some early reflections on the role of the Government, citizens and the Member of Parliament in making the transition. First, the Government. I want to acknowledge the significant effort and investments by the Government in developing a suite of funds to spear and support community-led initiatives. These include the $50 million SG Partnerships Fund under the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY), the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment's (MSE's) $50 million SG Eco Fund to support community-driven sustainability projects, and the Lively Places Fund co-run by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and the Housing and Development Board (HDB). In fact, another of my residents, Ms Diana Lau, from Boon Tiong estate applied herself for the Lively Places Fund and led the painting of a beautiful community street mural at Eng Hoon Street, turning what was a relatively underutilised pedestrianised street into a vibrant community hub and Instagrammable location. I strongly support these funds. They help meaningful ground-up initiatives. However, my sense is that these initiatives are positioned to run alongside the Government's infrastructure and planning approach. They are "good to have" micro-activations of public spaces which otherwise do not interact with or influence the core of the Government's plans and policies. But to build a democracy of deeds, I believe we should go much further and deeper, to place citizenship engagement right at the heart of our infrastructure and planning approach, in shaping our communities and our neighbourhoods. I will make three specific recommendations. First, how we manage state properties.”
“They sell their ideas to their fellow residents, the ideas are put to a vote and those that fall within the budget get implemented. So, ideas from residents, voted by residents, built for residents. When IPS approached me with the concept last year, I was enthusiastic to pilot it. Because I strongly believe in the potential of such a project in strengthening the sense of ownership and belonging of our residents and that given the right resources and facilitation, our residents will be able to develop the best ideas for their neighbourhoods. We completed the kick-off session for the pilot two weeks ago. Close to 200 residents turned up, a good range of ages reflecting the general demographics of the estate. We collected more than 120 ideas. But that was only the beginning. Since then, IPS has worked with the residents to categorise the ideas into seven areas. They conducted a deep dive with 25 residents last weekend. Residents volunteered to lead the work, set out detailed proposals based on the ideas in collaboration with the other residents. These residents will be hard at work over the next couple of weeks. Then, the ideas will be put to a feasibility committee made up of the technical agencies before we proceed with an exhibition and voting. Mr Speaker, these initiatives have had a catalytic effect on the rest of Tanjong Pagar-Tiong Bahru. Residents from other estates in the division have written to me, volunteering to lead similar "Bye Bye Blue Bins" initiatives in their own estates. Other have asked when can they introduce PB in their estates as well. It is my hope and belief that some of these pilots we are conducting here can be scaled up to other parts of Singapore.”
“Shin Min ran an article about the exhibition, spotlighting an artificial intelligence (AI) work by Ms Bianca Tse from Hong Kong, which seeks to recreate the Kowloon Walled City. I spoke to Bianca. She told me that the setting of the Tiong Bahru Air Raid Shelter captured the emotions she wanted to evoke through the work of the Walled City. Both were harsh environments which yet sheltered resilient communities. Anyone who has visited the Air Raid Shelter will know what she means. It has been largely untouched since the 1940s. Very dark, little ventilation. There are areas which are leaking and there are broken bricks in some places. Hardly a welcoming environment. Yet, Warren had the determination and boldness to conceptualise a digital art exhibition in the Shelter. He brought in works, like Bianca's, which spoke to the natural conditions of the Shelter and put in quite significant resources himself to ensure that it would be fit and safe for the public to spend some time in. Warren told me he was fascinated by the space since he was young: its heritage, its history, how it would have held more than 1,600 residents during the Second World War. He asked if it would be possible for the Government to retrofit it basically, for better ventilation and environment, and his dream will be to run it as a more permanent art museum and heritage node. Third, civic dialogue and consensus. Just last month, I partnered the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) to conduct a Participatory Budgeting (PB) pilot in Spottiswoode Park estate. The concept is simple. We set aside a budget of $200,000; residents develop and pitch ideas on enhancements for their neighbourhood.”
“What heartened me most was that our residents were stepping forth to take on responsibility for a shared problem and that NEA was prepared to cede some level of control and test a different approach with us. Today, the "Bye Bye Blue Bins" pilot in Seng Poh estate is ongoing. We have removed the bins for three weeks and have conducted two recycling collection drives. For the first event, we had 50 households turn up with about 200 kilogrammes of recyclables. For the second event, we had more than 100 households turn up with about 600 kilogrammes of recyclables. So, it is growing. The residents who proposed the initiative have worked incredibly hard, not just to organise the recycling collection events, but to knock on doors, put up and distribute flyers all over the estate so that fellow residents know about the initiative and have avenues to provide feedback. They have also been working closely with the Town Council to coordinate enforcement. While the early results have been encouraging, it is early days yet. The team is collecting feedback and will continue to improve the approach. Second, civic imagination. In December last year, another resident, also from Seng Poh estate, Mr Warren Wee, wrote to me as well. He is an art curator and wanted to organise a digital art exhibition at the Tiong Bahru Air Raid Shelter where he would invite both local and international artists to present their works. I gave him my support as well. His exhibition ran for a week from 19 to 26 January this year and I visited it three times: the first at his invitation for the opening reception, but the latter two were my own accord to bring the media and friends because I thought it was an excellent exhibition and I was very proud to share what our local boy had achieved.”
“Mr Speaker, in 1971, Mr S Rajaratnam spoke about how we needed to build a "democracy of deeds" in Singapore, where an active citizenry works with the Government to solve problems. Rather than a "democracy of words" – mere political rhetoric or adversarial debate. Fifty-five years on, this concept of a "democracy of deeds" remains deeply relevant. Indeed, a "we first" society which the Prime Minister has rallied us towards, is a society where the democracy of deeds flourishes. How would such a society look like? Sir, we are still in an early phase, but I hope Tanjong Pagar-Tiong Bahru can serve as a living prototype. Through several initiatives, we have observed the democracy of deeds manifest in three ways. First, residents taking the responsibility to act and solve problems. Second, residents having the imagination to create shared spaces. Third, residents demonstrating the maturity to reach consensus through dialogue. I will illustrate each of these. First, civic responsibility. In August last year, a group of residents of Seng Poh estate in Tiong Bahru led by Mr Kelvin Ang wrote to me. They had observed a worsening issue of the blue recycling bins in their estate being contaminated and becoming littering spots which spoilt the environment of their beautiful neighbourhood. They sought my support to try a different approach. Remove the blue bins and they would organise regular recycling collection drives instead to ensure that residents sorted and deposited clean recyclables. So, I contacted the National Environment Agency (NEA) to give my support for the initiative and requested that they partner us too.”
“I urge the agency to consider whether these charges for individual importers can be waived or whether there can be a tiered registration system. Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.”
“Next, clause 12 of the Bill amends the Energy Conservation Act such that the Director-General may require an individual importer of regulated goods for their own use to provide free of charge samples to the Director-General for the purpose of testing or analysis, and any other document that the Director-General requires. It is quite likely that for importers who are importing for their own use to only import one piece of the good, so it could perhaps, be challenging for them to provide “free of charge” samples to the Director-General for the purpose of testing and analysis. So, I seek a clarification again on the need for this. Next, I would also like to highlight two points in relation to the implementation of the amendments in the Bill. First, the extension of the MEPS and MELS requirements to importers will likely rely on existing processes for the registration of the regulated goods. However, the existing processes, as I understand, are designed for suppliers, retailers, importers and manufacturers that supply or sell regulated goods. These are typically companies or businesses. It is important therefore that the registration processes be modified or streamlined to be relevant for individual importers, including individuals or households that do the same. For example, the current Energy Labelling Scheme (ELS) Portal for registration relies on Corppass, which are for businesses and companies. It may also need to be adapted to allow for the use of Singpass by individual importers. Second, the application for the registration of regulated goods involves fees that are chargeable between $70 and $85, depending on the type of regulated goods.”
“Mr Speaker, in today's world, the case for energy conservation could not be stronger. Many of us are familiar with MEPS as well as MELS. They facilitate choices towards more energy efficient appliances, such as refrigerators, televisions and air-conditioners. This Bill seeks to extend the METS and MELS requirements to importers of regulated goods, such as the appliances I mentioned earlier, including for those for own usage. This will ensure consistent application of the requirements, while also not overly restricting consumer choices. I would like to raise a few points and seek clarifications from the Senior Minister of State. First, I would like to highlight two clauses in the Bill. Clause 7 of the Bill amends the Energy Conservation Act to require an importer of regulated goods for their own use to register the regulated good(s), “even if another importer has already so registered such regulated good(s)”. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify why this is required? Is the intent to keep track of the identity and number of importers of the specific regulated goods, even if it has already been registered by an importer? Regardless, would the agency consider a more streamlined approach for subsequent importers of already registered regulated goods. For example, can the agency update the specific model/type of regulated good(s) in its Database of Registered Goods for general awareness that it has been registered, and waive certain requirements for subsequent importers, such as the requirement to provide test reports, ISO certifications and so on, which would already have been provided by the original importer. This would reduce the regulatory burden for subsequent importers.”
“I declare that I work in the logistics arm of the port. I have two clarifications. First, will the measures to support the domestic transport and critical sector extend to the logistics and supply chain sector, such as the hauliers, as well as the port, because this is certainly a critical sector during this period? Second supplementary question: the war accelerates a fundamental global supply chain shift that has been happening for several years, away from cheapest, fastest and the leanest to safest, most resilient, as well as the most trusted. So, the Economic Strategy Review recommendations are timely and should be implemented swiftly. But my question is, are they bold enough and do they go far enough in view of what has just happened in the Middle East? Will Singapore be able to not just survive disruption, but thrive because of it as a reliability hub for our region?”
“Where heritage is lived and shared, it will become a bridge between the past and the present and the future generations – and together, we will achieve my vision for Tanjong Pagar, Tiong Bahru, to be a living community where every generation finds its place in the Singapore story.”
“Chairman, Tanjong Pagar-Tiong Bahru is a place where many of Singapore's stories began. Our very first Community Centre in Tiong Bahru, one of our first Residents' Committees in Tanjong Pagar Plaza, our beloved Tiong Bahru Market set amidst a beautiful pre-war public housing estate and, over at Tanjong Pagar, shophouses filled with clan associations juxtaposed against one of our very first mixed-use public housing developments, Tanjong Pagar Plaza, juxtaposed against the towering 55-floor The Pinnacle ＠ Duxton – until it is overtaken by the 60-floor Pearl's Hill Build-To-Order (BTO) coming up soon. Chairman, these are not just built infrastructure. They contain stories of our residents who have stayed here for many decades and they are living repositories of memory, culture and identity. However, heritage by itself does not sustain itself. If it is to be meaningful, it needs to be refreshed and shared with each new generation. 3.15 pm Today, our neighbourhood is home to many new families, young residents and international communities who may not know the stories of the earlier generation staying here. And it has been my mission to refresh our legacies and connect our generations in Tanjong Pagar-Tiong Bahru. I would like to seek the Government's support to support more community-led initiatives that bring seniors, youths and new residents together to rediscover these stories through heritage trails, inter-generational storytelling programmes, as well as collaborations with schools and civic institutions.”
“It may be better to over specify the number of lifts at the start and pay a higher price at the start, rather than having to maintain a large number of lifts that are not functioning properly in the future, over the longer term. So, that is just a point for me to highlight.”
“Thank you, Chairman. I have three qualifications. First, on lifts. The Tiong Bahru estate, consisting of pre-war and post-war buildings, has not had a lift since its establishment. A lot of the residents are getting older. I would like to ask whether I can work with MND, with a special task force, to explore all options. As the Minister described, they would be prepared to do so. Second, on pigeons. I think all of us face the concerns of pigeons defecating on the air-conditioning ledges; me as well. I look forward to the recommendations from the Punggol pilot, but I would like to ask the Ministry whether it would consider the use of audible pigeon deterrent devices, such as bio-acoustic units that use pre-recorded predator calls as part of the whole set of factors to combat this. This is just a suggestion. The third one, the lifts in super high-rise flats. I think the example from The Pinnacle@Duxton would be quite instructive. Currently, the feedback that I receive from residents of Pinnacle is. One, they pay higher S&CC charges, but why does the lifts seem to break down sometimes? And two, a lot of them tell me that they set aside at least 15 minutes to catch the lift, for the fear of having to wait for a long time, especially when one of the lifts is broken down. But the reality is that while they pay higher S&CC charges, the cost of maintaining this lift is actually more than for other typical HDB flats. So, I think this point which the Minister made that up front, HDB, Town Council and residents will need to have good understanding is a very critical point.”
“However, there will be many Singaporeans who do not live to 95 years, perhaps even more so than those who do. So, my question is, will MND consider a scheme for these seniors, which allows them to purchase a short-term 2-room Flexi flat with minimum lease term that covers the youngest owner up to age 85? And a key condition for this being that if the owners want to move out or pass away before this lease expires, the flat will be returned back to HDB with no refund or compensation to the owner or their next of kin. These early return flats with remaining leases can then be used to house other seniors on the same scheme who live beyond 85 years and outlive their leases. And therefore at the overall scheme level, this will be in keeping with our home for life principle. Relaxing HDB Flat Eligibility”
“Sir, as highlighted by the Deputy Prime Minister Gan in this House, Singapore is facing an existential challenge as the fertility rate plunged to a historic low of 0.87. We need to support all couples on their parenthood journey. In this regard, there has been an increasing trend of transnational citizen marriages. In the past three years, one in four citizen marriages were with a non-resident. This is a significant proportion, and as other Members of the House have raised, having a large enough home to raise a family is one of the key considerations that young couples have today when deciding whether to have a child. By restricting our Singaporean with non-resident spouses to a 2-room Flexi flat, we are constraining 25% of would-be parents from having a child. Given our existential challenge, this is too high a proportion to risk. We need to support all couples in their parenthood journey, including those made up of a Singaporean and a non-resident. Second, seniors above 55 years old seeking to purchase a short lease, 2-room Flexi flat. Last month in Parliament, I asked if MND would consider lowering the home for life condition to require the remaining lease to cover the youngest owner till 83.5 years, which is the life expectancy age, instead of 95 years. This would enable these seniors to purchase more affordable short lease, 2-room Flexi homes, given the shorter remaining lease. And it could be the difference between them renting their homes forever or making the transition to home ownership. MND shared that many seniors would live longer than the average lifespan of 83.5 years, and this would compromise the home for life policy. I understand the policy rationale behind setting the age at 95 to cover most Singaporeans.”
“Chairman, housing in Singapore has never been just about putting a roof over one's head. It has also been about giving every Singaporean a stake in the nation. Sir, I want to acknowledge the work of MND and HDB officers over the years in working towards this mission while having to deal with changing demographics and preferences. Between 1980 and 2025, the resident population has grown from 2.4 million to 4.2 million. At the same time, the average household size has decreased from about five in 1980 to three in 2025. So, in this period, HDB has had to more than triple the number of flats from 330,000 to more than 1.2 million, all these while also meeting expectations to improve quality and design. In this context, the directive by the Minister for National Development to build more and build faster is apt and timely. In its addendum to the President's address last year, MND announced that HDB would review the income ceiling for BTO flats and study more housing options for singles, seniors, as well as larger families. It also said that it would provide assistance for more rental households to transit into home ownership. I would like to seek an update from the Ministry. In addition, I would like to further champion the case for two categories of Singaporeans. First, Singaporeans with non-resident spouses with no Singaporean or permanent resident child. Currently, this group of Singaporeans can only purchase a 2-room Flexi flat from HDB if the Singaporean is a first-timer aged 35 and above. I seek MND's consideration to relax this requirement and allow Singaporeans with non-resident spouses and no children to purchase flats of all sizes from HDB with no minimum age for the Singaporean.”
“Mr Chairman, I just seek a response from the Ministry on my cut on supporting our Pioneer hawkers.”
“However, my view is that as long as the head of the stall is a Singaporean, physically present daily at the stall and producing familiar hawker food, it does not matter as much the nationality of his or her stall assistant. Hence, to further support our long-serving hawkers manage their manpower needs and costs, I urge MSE to re-consider allowing work permit holders to work as stall assistants in our hawker centres, for stalls that have been operating for more than 10 years. Ultimately, the familiarity that all Singaporeans seek most in our hawker centres is the food, not the stall assistant. Improving Hawker Food Affordability”
“First, while our Pioneer hawkers still make up 30% of cooked food stallholders, this proportion will drop sharply over the next decade as they age. There will be a cliff effect. Many of them are already operating their stalls with the help of their family members, relatives or stall assistants. In 2024, then-Senior Minister of State for MSE Mr Koh Poh Koon said that the stalls of our pioneer hawkers can be transferred to immediate family members at the same low rent of about $300 per month. I would like to clarify if this low rent will be extended to subsequent renewals by the family member, or if subsequent three-yearly renewals will be subjected to the market rent, for which the median rent is around $1,250? If it is the latter, then it must follow that the average or mean rent of our hawker stalls will go up over the next decade, because 30% of stalls is a substantive proportion, and the jump from $300 to $1,250 is more than a four-fold increase. Sir, I have several Pioneer hawkers in my constituency of Tanjong Pagar-Tiong Bahru. Their children, who are now also in their 50s to 60s, have come to me. They want to take over the stalls from their parents but are worried of the rental spike when they do so. I understand that it is not realistic or practical to expect the rents of these stalls to be retained at $300 in perpetuity. However, I would like to seek MSE's consideration to stretch out the rental increase over a much longer period. For example, rather than a sharp jump from $300 to $1,250 in three years, could we stretch it out over 12 years instead? Second, manpower. Since 2025, NEA has allowed hawkers to hire Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) and LTVP+ holders. Mr Chair, I appreciate the expansion of the pool of stall assistants.”
“We should encourage our food producers, retailers and supply chain partners to work together, to develop innovative technologies and strategies that enable our food to last longer, while also generating less waste. And finally, going beyond developing global partnerships to transforming Singapore into the regional distribution centre for high-value food. We should leverage our world class port-infrastructure and invite food firms to use Singapore as their re-export base, where products are processed, certified by SFA standards and redistributed across the region. This will give us strategic leverage and early-access visibility to global food flows that others lack. Mr Chair, as we develop Our Food Story 2, I believe it is time to build our hawker story too. Sir, while not highlighted as much as for public housing and public transport, much of our food in our public hawker centres is supported by the Government, through rental policies and productivity grants. The Government also invests significantly to build and upgrade hawker centres, without recovering the costs from Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centres (SEHC) operators or stall owners. Our Pioneer hawkers, who currently still make up around 30% of cooked food stallholders, pay heavily subsidised rent at about $300 per month. This is part of the social compact between the Government and our people, and our hawker centres and culture have become a central part of our national identity. Sir, this House debated hawker culture in Singapore extensively in 2024. I was not in the House then. But I would like to raise two points that I believe will influence our hawker culture in the decade to come.”
“Chairman, I declare my interest working in the supply chain sector. In November 2025, Minister Grace Fu unveiled the Singapore Food Story 2. She highlighted how MSE will enhance Singapore's food security through the four pillars of diversifying imports, growing local, stockpiling and forming global partnerships. I was encouraged by the refreshed strategy. It is hard-nosed and practical. However, I believe for these strategies to be to be successful, we will need to forge a strong alliance between our food and supply chain logistics sectors. Let me explain. First, we have to go beyond diversified imports to diversified imports with integrated logistics. Our efforts to diversify our food sources will only be as successful as our ability to transport them safely to Singapore. For many products, a new source is useless if the cold chain breaks. Therefore, I suggest that the Government support the set-up of shared digital platforms where importers and logistics providers are able to track "source contamination risks", work out alternative sources and transport pathways to Singapore, in real-time. Second, going beyond growing local to growing local costs effectively through shared infrastructure. To make our high-tech farms commercially viable, we will need shared plug-and-play logistics hubs that consolidate cold storage and first-mile, last-mile distribution. This will help to bring down distribution cost for producers and make our local produce much more cost competitive. Third, going beyond stockpiling to innovative stockpiling. Our strategic stockpiling of rice and proteins relies on the ability of the supply chain partners because they are the guardians of the reserves.”
“In this context, it is more important that we build up domestic support. But how do we do so? I would like to suggest four quick strategies. First, anchor foreign policy in shared national principles. Singaporeans will differ in views, but we must be united in valuing our shared principles. And if decisions are consistently framed around these principles, while there may disagreements or individual decisions, public will understand the logic behind them. Second, be more transparent in how we explain our key decisions. Not all negotiations can be conducted in the public square. But if the Government can explain the context, constraints and trade-offs more clearly after decisions are made, even if our citizens are not involved in the "how", they will better understand the "why", and their confidence will deepen. Third, invest in education and strategic literacy and dedicate resources to schools, just like what Member Eileen Chong has just raised. A population that understands global economics, security realities and regional dynamics, will be much less susceptible to simplistic narratives. Fourth and finally, leadership matters. We need calm, consistent voices that avoid inflaming sentiment, overtly or insidiously on both sides of this House, to set the tone for national discourse. Mr Chair, building support for our foreign policy does not mean crowdsourcing strategy. It means building trust, strengthening understanding and reinforcing the values that have safeguarded Singapore's Independence and sovereignty for decades. Singapore Relations with China and US”
“Mr Chair, recently, a resident approached me to ask if the Government will do a citizen consultation exercise on whether Singapore accept the invitation to join the US-initiated Board of Peace. She shared with me a poll on Yahoo, where 87% of respondents voted "no" and I believe that was her view as well. I shared with her my view that while I am a big advocate for greater citizenship consultations in many areas, there are broader considerations for this. She replied that carrying out a public consultation was not about letting public opinion dictate our decisions, but to help ensure that the decision considers societal and cultural views and not just the Ministries involved doing work on its own. Sir, I was touched when my resident was candid with me on this issue that meant to her, but I was troubled because if her perspective and assumptions are similarly held by many other Singaporeans, then we have lots to do to build greater domestic support for our foreign policy. In a world that is more divided, more volatile and more vocal than ever before and where attempts at foreign interference are rife, foreign policy can easily become a lightning rod for emotion. Every citizen will have our own view on foreign policy, undoubtedly shaped by our cultural backgrounds and influences we are exposed to daily. These reviews are relevant and it is important that the Government has its pulse on the ground. However, it will be unwise to turn strategic decisions of such a nature into public referendums, or for the Government to be pressured into taking certain decisions based on public sentiment. This will compromise the deafness and manoeuvrability and confine the space of our foreign policies which are critical in this complex geopolitical environment.”
“As I mentioned, they have their work cut out for them, but I have every confidence that they would do their best and do us proud. With that, I would like to withdraw my cut. 6.37 pm”
“Thank you, Mr Chair. Mr Chair, earlier on when I heard Minister Indranee mention that our education and career options should be like an open highway, I could not help but think of a famous song by Jon Bon Jovi, "It's My Life". Incidentally, this is a definitive comeback song that revitalised his career in the 21st century. I hope similarly, our great reset of attitudes towards parenthood and marriage will also experience a great revitalisation. There is actually another song by Jon Bon Jovi that he wrote in 2024, which is termed the most emotional song he has ever written. It is the song called "Kiss the Bride". And the lyrics? "I used to be your Superman, my whole world in your little hand. Now, he's your world, that's right, I'll step aside. Now, she's your world, alright, I'll step aside. 'You may kiss the bride'." Mr Chair, I hope as many Singaporeans will be able to experience the joy of parenthood and bringing up their child and be able to join me in this journey of parenthood. Sir, PMO has its work cut out for it – from ensuring that our public officers understand the world, understand our people, understand technology well, to ensuring that we continue to attract top-tier talent and anchor a strong scientific base in Singapore, to pressing on with climate mitigation and adaptation strategies, even while ensuring our competitiveness as a climate realist, to ensuring this great reset on marriage and parenthood, and to building a strong equities market. I would like to thank Deputy Prime Minister Gan, Minister Chan, Minister Indranee and Minister Chee for their responses. I would also like to thank the Head of Civil Service, the Permanent Secretaries, the Deputy Secretaries, and Directors and staff of PMO for their hard work.”
“They told me that they found the session refreshing and they gained much deeper perspectives into the workings of our legislative process. And their interest will extend to the realms of the executive processes, land use planning and many other policy areas of Singapore. That said, the conduct of the session took considerable time and effort by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) and myself, and it also required sustained commitment from the participants to produce a report. So, greater consultation requires not just a willingness to consult, but the dedication and commitment to put in the time and effort. So, in light of this, how is the Public Service preparing our officers to better understand and meet the challenges posed by a changing domestic landscape, where there is a greater need of engagement and consultation, as well as a fracturing world order? [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Ministerial Powers”
“Mr Chair, I move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head U of the Estimates be reduced by $100." Sir, the rules-based international order that has prevailed for decades – characterised by free trade, global supply chains and the development of multilateral institutions, like the United Nations (UN) and the World Health Organization (WHO), and international law and treaties like the Paris Agreement on climate change – is being unravelled. Countries have adopted more protectionist measures, like tariffs and restrictions on trade, contributing to the fragmentation of global supply chains and economies. As a small and open country, these trends will disproportionately affect us in Singapore. How we adapt and capitalise on these trends will determine Singapore’s success in this new era. As front-liners and policy-makers, our Public Service plays a critical role. Our public officers will need to have a keen understanding of our rapidly changing global environment, they will need to have the gumption and courage to question assumptions held by their seniors and predecessors, to be able to make decisions necessary to seize and develop opportunities for Singapore and Singaporeans. At the same time, back home, Singaporeans’ expectations of the Public Service are evolving. Our social fabric is becoming more diverse. Singaporeans increasingly want to play an active role in shaping our nation's future. They seek meaningful engagement and consultation on policies and initiatives that affect their lives, including their lived environment. For example, when I recently did a Citizens Reflections session with my residents, I received strong and positive feedback from those who joined the session to discuss the recent Land Transport Bill.”
“Thank you, Sir. I believe this will be especially critical for generations to come with the advent of AI, because my concern is that the acquisition of foundational knowledge and fundamental cognitive skills will be impacted by growing up with AI. Now I need to be like a robot. Already, there have been studies that suggest that Gen Z may be the first generation that shows lower average intelligence quotient (IQ) and cognitive scores than previous generations for attention, memory and literacy. This is linked to screen time, digital devices and social media – and I have no doubt that AI will compound these challenges. We are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. In this context, it becomes even more critical that our students achieve fundamental competencies, and the most important factor for this is motivation. If our students are able to put in effort and they can achieve top grades with decent effort, I believe it will build up their confidence. It will build up their interest and motivation of the subject, and they will acquire good competency, which forms the solid foundation and springboard for them to leverage the potential of AI. Without this foundation, AI may only serve to retard the cognitive development instead. Mr Speaker, the vision and priorities outlined by the Prime Minister in the Budget speech are long-sighted and far reaching. I believe that the suggestions I have made in my speech will further strengthen us as a society and give all of our children a better chance to succeed in life. I support the Budget. [Applause.]”
“Again, MOE did not release the data, but I believe that way less than 40% of each cohort, PSLE or "O" levels, will have received the top or top two grades for Math, for example. And this is because, while our grades for both the exams are no longer assigned on a bell curve base, they are now based on the objective scores of the students – the philosophy behind how the exams are set has not changed. It is set to be able to segregate the children by ability very finely. So, you have X% of very challenging questions, Y% of challenging questions, so in and of itself, the exam will be able to differentiate the students and by that, affect their grades, thereby school selection – which is the key cause of the education arms race. But I do not think that this needs to be or should be the case. If 40% of our cohort are considered top performers in Math globally, then the performance on the national exams should reflect as such – 40% of the cohort should get the top or top two grades in Math. Sir, I should be clear. I am not against challenging our students or against facilitating the best or most inclined of them to achieve greater skill and accomplishment. It is just that I disagree that our national exams should serve this purpose. We should not confuse excellence and competency. It is the role of national competitions – Math Olympiads, Science Olympiads, English Olympiads – to reward and recognise excellence. The role of national exams should be to assess for competency. And once students clear the threshold of competency, they should get the top grade, without any further finer segregation.”
“To me, a strong family nucleus means testing, these remain critical, but equally important is that we take care of each and every child, regardless of their parents' circumstances. Let us not let the heartbreak or the regrets of one generation affect the chances of success of the next. Mr Speaker, I will now change gears and turn to the final segment of my speech – our national exams. I was very heartened when Minister Desmond Lee announced that the Government and MOE are reviewing high stakes exams, especially the PSLE. Let me share my views on why I think this is timely and much needed. At the last Parliament Sitting, I asked MOE for a detailed breakdown by grade across several national exams – what proportions scored what grade – for the PSLE and the "O" level. MOE replied that for PSLE, at least nine in 10 students achieved AL6 or better in English, Mother Tongue, Math and Science; and for the "O" levels, about nine in 10 obtain a C6 or better in English, Mother Tongue and Math. That is obviously not what I asked for, because I asked for a detailed breakdown of each grade. But let me explain why I asked for this. In the latest PISA 2022 assessment of 15-year-olds, 41% of our students were classified as top performers for Math, 24% for Science, and 23% for reading. In comparison, for the OECD, it was 9% classified top performers for Math, 7% each for Science and reading. But if we ask any general 15-year-old in Singapore, I believe a very small percentage will tell us that they are top performers in any of these subjects. Why? Because their lived experience going through the exam system in Singapore has told them that they are not top performers.”
“And thereafter, they need to go through the entire process again – registering for a new ASA, going for all the interviews and putting up all the documentation. Sir, I can understand the Government's desire to ensure that each adoption goes well. We all do. But this is surely too much. Their first child has already been with them for close to a year. Why the need to wait another nine more months to start the process, and why then the need to reassess them for adoption suitability, when things are going well with the first child? And to compound the situation, compared to maternity leave of 16 weeks, adoption leave for parents is only 12 weeks. So, on the one hand, we want them to bond longer with the child, but on the other hand, the leave period is shorter. Sir, if our fellow Singaporeans are made to feel like second-class parents during the process, something is not right. These are Singaporeans who have put in great resolve to care for the child just as their own. They are no second-class parents. They are special-class parents. So, I urge all the relevant Government agencies and there are many involved in the process as I have described, to come together, work towards streamlining the process for parents significantly. And may I suggest that during the period where the child is in Singapore on a Dependent's Pass, let us extend the Singapore Citizenship subsidies for infant care, for childcare, for medicals to the child, because it is a matter of time that they will become a citizen, and these are critical developmental years. Let us not lose time and also let us align the adoption leave with maternity leave at 16 weeks. Sir, the changes I have suggested above may be seen as an attempt to slay several sacred cows, but to me, it really is not.”
“After matching with the identified child, they had to apply for a Dependent's Pass for the child to be able to come to Singapore, because they need the child to be in Singapore for them to apply to the Court for the adoption order. But the Court process takes several more months as well, because as part of the review, the Judge requires a report from the Guardian-in-Adoption, who is an officer appointed by the Ministry of Social and Family Development, and she interviewed them again, made home visits, similar questions as the ASA. And it was only after she had completed her report, then could the couple request for a final hearing for the Judge to issue the adoption order. After receiving the adoption order, they then need to apply to the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority, finally, to get citizenship for their son. At the point where theycame to me, they had spent more than one and a half years since they started the ASA process. Their son had been in Singapore for close to a year and, at that point, were they able to apply for citizenship. During the entire period, when their child, their son, was in Singapore, they had to pay foreigner fees for all the medicals associated with him, because he was not a Singapore Citizen, at least not yet. They shared with me that they felt like second-class parents. But to top it all off, they wanted to adopt a second child so that their first child has a sibling. Well, just like all of us. However, the Ministry of Social and Family Development has informed them that they are strongly encouraged to start the process at least nine months from the date of their first child's adoption order, so that they can bond adequately with the first child.”
“Sir, the emotional, health and financial impact of raising a child with special needs, after school and through life, is much more than the cost associated with bringing them up in their early developmental years. It is not something that every parent or any parent or child would wish upon themselves. And therefore, as a society, we should give them our fullest support in their developmental years, because each child is special and precious. Mr Speaker, my fourth and final group are our adopted children. Sir, for most couples, adopting a child is not the first resort. Many have invested significant amounts of time and energy, including going for in-vitro fertilisation to have children of their own. Adopting a child is not a decision that any couple takes lightly. They know it is for life. They are fully committed. There is no backing out, just like the rest of us who have children of our own. I spoke to a resident recently, who also happens to be a childhood friend of mine. She and her husband came to my Meet-the-People Sessions and shared with me their adoption journey. First, they had to attend a pre-adoption briefing and a disclosure briefing and then obtain a favourable adoption suitability assessment (ASA). The ASA took several months, whereby they had to undergo, and they had to complete copious documentation, identify several referees and go through multiple intrusive interviews. But they, however, understood the need for this, because we do want to ensure that parents who adopt are ready and equipped to do so. After they cleared the ASA, they signed up to be on the waiting list of an accredited agency, so that they could identify a child for adoption and this was a very long waiting list, so there are many among us who would like to adopt a child as well.”
“This meant much more work for the school educators, but they all supported the initiative, and dedicated their time and energy to identifying and engaging these students because they knew that having a structured after school environment could be so helpful for these children. Today, the Deputy Director has grown a little older, has some white hair, stands here in Parliament. But he still has the same dream and the same fire burning in him. We should support all our children to have affordable childcare and after school care, regardless of whether their mother is employed. There are many more children beyond those currently identified in the schools that will benefit from this. And our school educators and teachers will also save time from having to make the case for each of these children. So, Mr Speaker, my plea to the Government is, "Come on, let's get this done". Let us grant the additional subsidies for childcare and afterschool care to all students and drop the working mother criteria. Again, I do not believe that this will overnight make all of our working mothers wake up and decide to stop work, or this encourage those who are looking for work to not continue to do so. Mr Speaker, the third group are our children with special needs. I would like to call for the removal of means-testing for subsidies associated with children with special needs. And this will include additional subsidy for the Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children, subsidies for Special Student Care Centres, subsidies for children who need assistive technology and devices, like hearing aids. We should also extend free frequency modulation systems for all children in preschools, just as we do today for those in primary schools.”
“Currently, non-working mothers do not qualify for the additional subsidies for childcare as well as after-school care. So, they will have to pay several hundred dollars more each month if they would like to place their children on these programmes. Here again, there is clear policy logic. We want to incentivise dual-income households. Moreover, there will be some of us that think, since the mother is not working, well, she can care for the child, no need to place in childcare or student care. Sir, in 2018, about eight years ago, there was a young Deputy Director in MOE. He came across many students from complex, disadvantaged family backgrounds who would have benefited from the structured environment after school, but who were deprived from doing so because their families decided they could not afford it. In some cases, the parents had many children. In other cases, they had a child with special needs amid siblings. So, the mother had to stay at home to take care of the children, but as you can understand, she could not take care of each of them adequately well. There were also other mothers he encountered who were absent. They are not working but nor are they taking care of the child. The Deputy Director and his team were determined not to let the working mother criterion hold back these children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds from accessing structured after school care. From the ground up, they worked hard with school educators and the Ministry of Social and Family Development, and devised a protocol where the school educators would identify the children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds, facilitate their registration in the school-based Student Care Centre, highly subsidised.”
“But I do not believe that any Singaporean that will wake up one day and decide to have a child without getting married, just because we change our policy stance and allow them to be benefit from all the above benefits as provided to married parents. Even married parents are not incentivised to do so, as evidenced by the low TFR. Mr Speaker, nobody makes the decision to have a child without getting married on a whim. If given a choice, I believe that not a single one of us in this House or in this country will want to be an unmarried parent. Behind every child born to an unmarried parent is a story of tears, agony, confusion, uncertainty, but overcome by only a burning desire to bring up the child. I have met a couple of residents who are single and unmarried. They have burnt the candle at both ends because they tell me they want their child to grow up feeling like they are the same, like any other child in school. Many succeed but many others do not. Have our policies inadvertently tipped the balance against them? This is not how a society where each child is precious should be or can be. We must do better. It is time to stop the policy differentiation between married and unmarried parents who take care of their children. This is not an abandonment or de-prioritisation of the family nucleus. This is not an encouragement of people to have children out of wedlock. And this is not going to lead to a sudden spike in the number of children born out of wedlock. All it is is a reflection of a society that cares for each child and that does its best to alleviate the challenging circumstances they face at birth and give them a better chance in life. Mr Speaker, the second group are children of non-working mothers.”
“Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Budget. However, I would like to speak on how we can do better to support Singaporeans and families with children. Sir, our TFR has remained below one for a couple of years now. This is well below the replacement rate of 2.1. What does this mean for Singapore? On the one hand, it means we must do much more to support parenthood. But to me, a low TFR means that each child born to or adopted by a Singaporean, is precious. Not just to their parents but to all of us as a society. And our policies and structures must reflect the full weight of society's support, regardless of the circumstances of their parents. While the Government has done much to support each child, I would like to highlight four groups of children that we can do much more for today. First, children of unmarried parents. Our policies across the Government systematically disadvantage this group of children today right from birth, as it penalises their unmarried parents who look after them. One, their unmarried parent does not receive the Baby Bonus Cash Gift of $11,000. Two, they are not recognised as part of a "family nucleus" for HDB schemes, they receive lower subsidies than the family grants. They are not eligible for schemes like the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme. Three, their unmarried parent is excluded from the most substantive tax benefits we provide for families. They cannot claim the Parenthood Tax Rebate of up to $20,000. They are not eligible for Working Mother’s Child Relief, even if the unmarried mother has to work doubly hard to bring up her child. Neither are they eligible for the Qualifying Child Relief. Sir, I believe strongly in the family nucleus, where the parents are able to bring up children in a loving and nurturing home.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister for his response. And I acknowledge that there are many seniors who are living beyond 83.5 years. At the same time, there are also many others who do not live till 83.5. And in my interactions with several of my residents, I have met a couple of categories who are unable to get onto the home ownership journey but who have extenuating circumstances that I think may merit a deeper look into this requirement. The two groups of residents are: one, they are renting on the open market, typically mid-career, hit by some midlife crisis, perhaps career, perhaps marriage. Their incomes are too high to rent Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats, but at the same time they cannot own in the private sector. So, therefore rising rental cost in the private market is a big concern for them. The second category are those who have been renting HDB flats for a long time and they have been making good income, working hard, trying to get out of the rental spiral. However, because of this 95-year-old requirement, they are a couple of years short of a lease tenure of a price that they will be able to afford to own their own HDB flat. So, I seek HDB's consideration to review whether we can do something for these categories.”
“A quick check online will show that while there is not a single global standard on what the speed should be, many jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, including France, certain jurisdictions in Australia, in fact, Slovenia as well, recently ruled a new six-kilometre-per-hour for the use of mobility aids on pathways. And I think many of the jurisdictions have all considered that this is based on the fact that it is a brisk walking speed. So, that is, I believe a scientific consideration in the ascertainment of what the speed is. But the positive effect of all the changes we have in this Bill will only be felt by our residents on the ground if there is effective enforcement. And I think that is something that all Members so far have raised as of critical input to the Bill. So, Mr Speaker, in closing, I would like to acknowledge the valuable input and perspectives of my residents on the Bill once again and I look forward to engaging them on more Bills, especially those under the Ministries that I am a GPC Member of – the Ministry of National Development, and the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment – as well as those impacting our built environment in general, such as this Bill, because it affects all of us. Notwithstanding the points I have raised, I support the Bill. 6.02 pm”
“In fact, with the lower allowable speeds of such vehicles, it is even more important that our platform operators continue to support those with mobility challenges as they seek to earn a livelihood. In this regard, I was very glad to hear Ms Yeo Wan Ling's update that the platform workers have been working very closely with NDCA and the union to ensure that this is done. In addition, though, will the Government consider a seamless digital link between LTA's register and the platform operator systems to facilitate automatic verification so that there is less doubt in between the processes? Fourth, the new rules on the selling and advertising of mobility vehicles. We support commercial regulation as this helps to ensure upstream accountability. We note, however, that the current Bill does not extend to regulating against the advertising of illegal repairs and modifications to mobility vehicles. I repeat that. It is the advertising of these illegal repairs. Is this an area that the Ministry intends to cover? And finally, given that the intent is for mobility vehicles to only be used by those with mobility challenges, did the Ministry consider centralising the supply through healthcare institutions only, for example? Finally, I would just want to make a quick point on the six-kilometre-per-hour speed limit. I support the reduction to six kilometres per hour, similar to Members like Mr Ng Shi Xuan. I believe it is reasonable and sensible. And, in fact, it is not only Singapore that believes so.”
“Will the Government be able to streamline the process to minimise the hassle for these persons and will the Government also consider the provision of subsidies or grants to cover the registration and associated fees for those among them that face financial challenges? We would also like to highlight one particular provision in the Act and seek clarification. Specifically, why is an additional identification mark required at the registered responsible person's expense when there will already be a registration mark issued by LTA? What information will be placed on the marks? Several of my residents were particularly concerned about this. Will there be any personal data and privacy concerns as the marks may allow the public to identify people with mobility challenges based on the marks on the mobility vehicle alone even if nobody is using the vehicle? Finally, we would also like to understand how the registration framework will cover vehicles which are shared amongst families, rented commercially and transferred or sold. Will these modes still be allowed, as these could be more cost-effective options for those in need? Third, the introduction of greater platform operator responsibilities. As a good number of mobility vehicle users we encounter on the paths are delivery workers, we support these changes. The secondary level of oversight placed on platform operators will complement the medical certificate requirement. However, we hope that these additional responsibilities do not lead to platform operators deciding to deprioritise or stop onboarding mobility vehicle users onto their platforms.”
“In addition, there were concerns that different medical practitioners may have differing practices in ascertaining the need, so how will MOH ensure standardised clinical practice? Will there be training for practitioners? Because on the one hand, we want to ensure that those with genuine mobility challenges are able to get the certification with minimum hassle. But on the other hand, we also hope that in making the assessments, our practitioners do not inadvertently encourage the over-reliance on the mobility vehicles for those who are still able to move about relatively independently. Second, the introduction of the need to register mobility vehicles. We agree that this facilitates greater accountability and can help with enforcement as, currently, the lack of identification marks constrains enforcement even when offences may be detected by the Active Mobility Enforcement Cameras. However, we would like to highlight that this may not fully address the challenge of enforcing against those who do not register and therefore, continue to run around without identification marks on their mobility vehicles. So, therefore, despite the changes in the legislation, adequate presence on the ground continues to remain critical to enforcing against this group. At the same time, while we acknowledge the potential benefits of registration, several residents asked if the need to register would be too onerous for those with genuine medical need given that they would already have had to obtain the medical certificate and many of whom may be facing financial challenges.”
“Mr Speaker, in preparation for today's debate, I partnered the Institute of Policy Studies to convene a "Citizens Reflections" session with my residents in Tanjong Pagar-Tiong Bahru. I hoped that through the session, my residents would develop a deeper understanding of our Parliamentary proceedings and a stronger sense of engagement viz these debates. Hence, after the Bill was tabled in Parliament for the First Reading in January, I met residents who responded to an open call for a full-day session on 17 January where we had robust and enriching discussions on the active mobility segments of the Bill. Following the session, the participants spent an additional week to co-develop a close to 60-page report synthesising our discussion and I will highlight the key points in the report in my speech today. Mr Speaker, my residents took many positives from the proposed changes in the Bill. At they same time, they also raised several practical considerations and suggestions that were all people-centred, focused on the needs of fellow citizens with mobility challenges. I will cover four key areas today. First, the introduction of the medical certificate requirement for the driving or riding of mobility vehicles on public paths. We agree that this is reasonable to ensure that the use and the space associated with the use of mobility vehicles is safeguarded for those amongst us with genuine mobility challenges, and coupled with the other specifications on size and speed, this will curb the misuse of such mobility vehicles, which endangers the safety of all path users, especially pedestrians. However, we would like to seek clarification from the Ministry. Will the Government consider providing subsidies for those in need to cover the cost of the clinical assessment?”
“Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for her really empathetic response and I, in particular, appreciate the support that MOE has given our individual stallholders. My supplementary question is really my main question, which is, has MOE considered paying individual hawkers to set up stalls in the canteen? And I ask that for the same reason that Minister of State raised in the speech, because if our objective is affordable, nutritious and balanced meals, I can understand that where you do not have individual food stallers who want to do so, you turn to the central kitchen model. But if our objective on top of that is the positive school experience where the canteen and school is a microcosm society of the hawker centres in the public spaces, then where there is a dearth of individual stallholders, would it not be then time for the Government to consider paying people to provide this experience for our students?”