Gabriel Lam
Singapore
“Eligibility thresholds and coverage frameworks must keep pace with living costs. At the same time, more can be done to support litigants-in-person. Simplified procedures, clearer guidance and enhanced assisted self-help tools can reduce costs while preserving fairness. I therefore seek clarification on two points.”
“I must say that I am very happy that I have met quite a number of them who, upon release, they may be working with a company, and some would have progress. Others found an opportunity within the similar industry to continue to progress to another company.”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his response. In my interactions with rough sleepers, they have cited a few reasons, including a lack of privacy and personal space, as the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has mentioned. They have also cited instances of shelter rules and safety concerns.”
“It is as important to cultivate digital restraint as it is to punish digital harm. Third, we should examine the appeals framework carefully. The Bill currently limits further appeals after an online safety Appeal Committee's decision.”
“I was at an MPS where I saw this resident whose husband had just passed away a year ago and as there was no will and no LPA before he lost mental capacity, it led to complex legal challenges and emotional distress. These things are preventable. But many still do not know what an LPA is.”
The complete record
Every one of 24 lines we hold for Gabriel Lam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account.
“While public messaging has its place, many families today are not struggling because of a lack of awareness. They are struggling because of cumulative pressures – cost of living, housing affordability, expensive childcare, enrichment expectations and long working hours. At the national level, we rightly prioritise workforce development and economic competitiveness. But do our family policies receive the same systemic priority? Or have we unintentionally reduced family stability to a messaging exercise rather than treating it as an economic and cross-ministerial design issue? Is the traditional nuclear family still the dominant policy reference point? And if so, does that sufficiently reflect current realities, including single-parent households, blended families, delayed marriages and dual-career pressures? I would therefore like the Minister to clarify whether MSF intends to undertake a broader review of family policy design assumptions; whether outcome metrics for "family strength" go beyond programme uptake to measure stability, financial resilience and child well-being across diverse household types; and whether inter-Ministry coordination, particularly with the Ministry of Manpower, Ministry of National Development and Ministry of Education, is being strengthened to address root pressures embedded in our housing, labour and education systems, rather than relying primarily on awareness campaigns. Mr Chairman, this policy cut is not intended to diminish support for families. Rather, it signals the need to reassess whether our frameworks have kept pace with social change. If we are serious about building strong families, then our policies must be designed not around idealised models but around the realities Singaporean households actually live with today.”
“Mr Chairman, MSF has consistently emphasised the importance of strong families and I support that objective. However, when we speak about "strong families", we must ask: what families are we speaking about and are our policies fully aligned with the lived realities of Singaporean households today? Let me begin with single-parent families. Single parents face a distinct and compounding set of pressures – financial strain, time scarcity, caregiving burden, housing constraints and, in some cases, social stigma. Unlike dual-income households, single parents must shoulder both breadwinning and caregiving responsibilities without internal household support. 6.30 pm While MSF provides assistance schemes, much of the framework remains largely designed around a dual-family baseline. Single parents often qualify for support only after meeting strict income thresholds and many fall into a financially squeezed middle, earning too much for sustained assistance, yet too little to comfortably manage rising costs. These are parents who work full-time, care for their children alone and yet live one unexpected bill away from financial instability. I therefore ask the Minister. Does MSF track long-term economic mobility outcomes specifically for single-parent households? Are there plans to recalibrate housing, childcare and work-support schemes to better reflect the time and income constraints unique to single parents? Has the Ministry conducted a comprehensive review of whether current family policies inadvertently assume a nuclear, dual-parent model? Mr Chairman, this leads to a broader question. Much of MSF's effort to encourage strong families appears centred on public education campaigns promoting marriage, parenting and shared norms.”
“Eligibility thresholds and coverage frameworks must keep pace with living costs. At the same time, more can be done to support litigants-in-person. Simplified procedures, clearer guidance and enhanced assisted self-help tools can reduce costs while preserving fairness. I therefore seek clarification on two points. First, will the Ministry review legal aid eligibility criteria to ensure continued accessibility? Second, will further procedural simplifications or assisted self-help mechanisms be introduced to ease the burden on middle-income litigants? This policy cut is modest in amount but serious in purpose. Court judgments must have real effect. And the doors of justice must remain meaningfully open. Strengthening enforcement and expanding accessibility are not optional refinements. They are foundational to public confidence in our legal system. Creative Uses for State Land”
“Mr Chairman, in previous debates, the Ministry said it was studying reforms to strengthen civil enforcement, including greater powers to identify the assets of judgment debtors and stronger deterrence against non-compliance with Court orders. These reforms are necessary. For many Singaporeans, especially small businesses and middle-income households, obtaining judgment is only half the battle. A judgment may declare one’s rights. But without enforcement, it is only a piece of paper. Today, enforcement can be costly, slow and uncertain. Creditors must spend more time and money tracing assets, initiating further applications and navigating complex procedures. When debtors conceal assets or ignore Court orders, the burden falls back on the successful party. This is not just inconvenient; it is destabilising. For a small business, delayed recovery can affect cash flow and survival. For individuals, it prolongs stress and financial strain. If Court orders are ignored without consequences, confidence in the rule of law is weakened. Our justice system must not only decide cases fairly. It must ensure that its decisions are obeyed. I therefore ask, what is the current status of the Ministry’s review? Has a policy direction been settled? When will we see legislative amendments or pilot measures introduced? Mr Chairman, access to justice is not only about enforcement. It is also about affordability. We are in a period of cost pressures. Civil litigation is expensive. While legal aid schemes are valuable, many lower- and middle-income Singaporeans may fall into a difficult gap – earning too much to qualify, yet too little to afford sustained legal representation. Access to justice should not depend on one’s ability to pay substantial upfront legal fees.”
“I must say that I am very happy that I have met quite a number of them who, upon release, they may be working with a company, and some would have progress. Others found an opportunity within the similar industry to continue to progress to another company. So, it is not only about review, we continuously do a review, but we continuously enhance the ecosystem that we have. We expand the number of employers. We train the employers. We also better prepare the inmates so that they can have not only more opportunities, but they are able to sustain their job. You are right to say that one inmate may receive more than one offers. This is something that we want to continue to provide them with the opportunity and at the same time help them, not only provide that beyond second chances – grow as high as they can.”
“I thank our political officeholders for their comprehensive answer. My question pertains to Yellow Ribbon itself, in terms of employment. We know that the employment ecosystem is very important and in certain sectors actually, each offender before they are released into the system, they undergo interview process and they actually have multiple job offers. So, I just wanted to know how often is the review of this job review ecosystem and whether it looks at the number of employers. It is not so important to have that many number of employers, but more important to actually have the ecosystem of care where the case manager, the employer and everyone is included in the aftercare of the ex-offender. So, I just wanted to know how often is that review done? Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. One thing that I would like to share with the Member is that, we not only look at the numbers of the employers that work with us, we look at the process and the effectiveness of the efforts being undertaken like, for example, you look at the type of industries that we have been exposing our inmates to. We have included new areas of growth and at the same time the kind of jobs that they do. Also, there is a diversity of that kind of jobs. In addition to that, we have the career coach who will journey with the ex-inmates to see how we can navigate this process of getting a job and having the job and trying to sustain it. We also train the employers, the staff of the organisation, so that they understand and they know how to handle our friends who really, really wanting to get a job and find meaning in the job.”
“They are basic safeguards for economic participation. Encouragingly, the integration of rehabilitation, community partnerships and law enforcement reflects a holistic philosophy – public safety is best protected not only through deterrence, but through prevention and resilience building. Mr Chairman, Singapore's approach to corrections has long emphasised transformation rather than warehousing. That philosophy has served us well. The Yellow Ribbon movement has demonstrated that when society chooses inclusion over exclusion, many individuals respond positively and rebuild their lives. As we commemorate 50 years of Yellow Ribbon Singapore, we should reaffirm three principles. First, rehabilitation must remain evidence-based and outcomes-driven. Second, reintegration must be sustained, extending beyond release into stable employment, family support and community belonging. Third, vulnerability to emerging risks, including digital scams, must be proactively addressed as part of modern rehabilitation. I therefore express my support for MHA's ongoing efforts and I am confident that with continued refinement, cross-agency coordination and community partnership, the next chapter of Yellow Ribbon Singapore will be defined not only by compassion, but by measurable progress and enduring impact. 5.15 pm Scams”
“Where family bonds are intact, the likelihood of successful reintegration increases significantly. Where families are fractured, vulnerabilities multiply. Continued coordination between correctional services, social service agencies and community partners is therefore essential to ensure that counselling, housing stability and financial planning support are aligned rather than fragmented. As Yellow Ribbon Singapore turns 50, this milestone offers not only an opportunity to celebrate, but also to consolidate and refine our strategy for the next decade. A forward-looking rehabilitation framework with clear outcome metrics such as employment retention, housing stability and community integration indicators would help sustain momentum and reinforce public confidence. I therefore ask the Minister, what is MHA's medium-term quantitative targets for reducing five-year recidivism over the next five years? Will MHA publish a forward-looking 2026 to 2030 rehabilitation strategy with a clear outcome matrix, including employment, retention, housing stability and community integration indicators? Three, how does MHA assess the effectiveness of current employer partnership schemes and other plans to expand structured post-placement support to reduce relapsed risk? Mr Chairman, I would also like to speak about scams, which remain a significant societal challenge. Scam syndicates have become increasingly sophisticated. They prey on fear, urgency and trust. Individuals with weaker financial literacy, unstable employment or limited social support networks may be especially vulnerable, both as victims and, in some cases, as unwitting accomplices such as money mules. In today's digital economy, financial and cyber awareness are no longer optional competencies.”
“Mr Chairman, this year marks the 50th anniversary of Yellow Ribbon Singapore, formerly SCORE. Over five decades, the Yellow Ribbon movement has fundamentally reshaped Singapore's approach towards ex-offenders. It has shifted mindsets from stigma to second chances, mobilised employers across sectors and supported thousands of individuals in rebuilding their lives with dignity and purpose. This is no small achievement. It reflects a long-term whole-of-society effort – one that balances accountability with redemption and public safety with social reintegration. At the same time, as with all mature systems, we must continuously review and strengthen what we have built. According to the latest data from the Singapore Prison Service, the five-year recidivism rate rose, from 36.6% for the 2019 release cohort, to 39.3% for the 2020 release cohort. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] It is reasonable to view this in the context of the pandemic, a period marked by economic uncertainty, hiring slowdowns and reduced face-to-face supervision and support services. These disruptions would have disproportionately affected individuals attempting to reintegrate into society. Even so, the figures remind us that reintegration is not automatic. It is a process that requires sustained support, particularly in the first few years after release. I therefore support MHA's strengthening of structured aftercare, employer partnerships and skill upgrading pathways. Employment remains one of the strongest protective factors against reoffending. But beyond job placement, what matters is job retention and progression. Stable work builds routine, income stability and self-worth. What matters is not simply giving someone a job, but giving them a future. Reintegration also depends heavily on families.”
“The troupes also work closely with various stakeholders to end training by 9.00 pm and to provide updates on their training schedules. This information is disseminated to the resident chat groups so that they can be kept informed. We have also organised learning journeys where residents of different races come and see the troupes train, and the troupes give a briefing on the significance of the various dance moves. The troupes are seen as a member of the community and are invited to various events in the community. But unity must be operationalised. The SG Partnerships Fund should incorporate clear multi-year community impact metrics so that cohesion outcomes are sustained, not symbolic. Structured civic participation pathways, including youth policy internships and project incubators, should become a permanent feature of our governance landscape. Corporate volunteering and social contribution metrics can be integrated into environmental, social and governance (ESG) reporting frameworks, encouraging deeper private-sector ownership of nation-building. A "we first" society must be cultivated intentionally. Unity must be measurable, participation must be meaningful and contribution must be normalised. In conclusion, Budget 2026 recognises that the world has changed. Resilience, therefore, must be layered and disciplined. A workforce that translates skills into mobility. Families that experience structural assurance. A society that embeds unity into practice. When these three reinforce one another, we do not merely withstand uncertainty. We convert it into strength. That is how we secure our future together. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Budget.”
“But in an ageing society with structurally rising healthcare and retirement needs, assurance must be systemic. We must hence move towards a clearer, consolidated family assurance framework – one that maps lifetime support across housing, childcare, healthcare and retirement in a transparent way. I call on the Government to ensure that inter-agency support for families under multiple schemes is streamlined into a single digital interface, reducing administrative complexity. Income thresholds for key schemes should also be reviewed regularly and pegged transparently to median income growth so that support evolves automatically with living standards. Assurance should not feel conditional or episodic. It should feel embedded. When families feel predictable stability, they make long-term decisions with confidence, and that confidence strengthens economic resilience. But every strong household and strong worker requires something deeper. In 2025, global conflict remained high, with over 200,000 violent conflict events recorded across many regions and conflict-related fatalities rising to nearly 240,000, underscoring how geopolitical instability persists across multiple theatres and continues to affect millions worldwide. Singapore cannot afford social fracture. The Budget invests deliberately in strengthening shared bonds through cultural institutions, expanded sports facilities, extended 250% tax deductions for donations and corporate volunteering, and a new $50 million SG Partnerships Fund. These are not soft measures. They are strategic investments in cohesion. In Canberra, we launched Project Sound Box, a sound mitigating box that reduces the sound generated from the lion dance troupes in the area by 40 decibels.”
“In a slower growth environment, our edge will not depend on how many courses are taken, but on whether upgrading consistently leads to higher wages and better prospects. The next step must be sharper outcome accountability. I thus call on the Government to publish regular data on post-training wage progression and re-employment outcomes by sector. Industry Transformation Maps should embed workforce mobility benchmarks, not just productivity metrics. Firms that receive significant transformation grants should demonstrate clearly how local workers benefit in terms of career progression. Resilience must mean that effort leads to advancement, visibly and measurably. Yet even the most adaptable worker draws strength from stable family foundations. Economic confidence cannot be sustained if households feel uncertain. This year's Budget strengthens support across life stages. Preschool subsidies will extend to families earning up to $15,000. ComLink+ enhancements can provide around $10,000 annually for families with young children. Central Provident Fund (CPF) top-ups of up to $1,500 will support Singaporeans aged 50 and above with lower balances. We begin this term on a strong fiscal footing. These measures ease pressure at critical junctures. In my interactions with residents in Canberra, many families have shared similar concerns. They are working hard, managing their responsibilities diligently and doing their best to provide for their children and care for their parents. What I hear consistently is not a demand for more but a desire for greater certainty, certainty that support will remain stable, that costs will not outpace incomes unpredictably and that the system will continue to stay behind them as they navigate different life stages.”
“Mr Speaker, Budget 2026 is not incremental, it is strategic. It is presented at a moment when the Prime Minister has described a profoundly changed world. More fragmented, more contested and less predictable. Last year, we grew at 5%. This year, growth is expected to moderate to between 2% and 4%. The global environment will remain structurally uncertain. In such a world, resilience must be intentional. Today, I will focus on three foundations that will determine whether we truly secure our future together: one, a workforce that can outrun disruption; two, families that experience structural assurance; three, a Singapore spirit strong enough to withstand fragmentation. These are not separate agendas. They reinforce one another. Economic resilience begins with adaptability. This Budget strengthens that adaptability. The Local Qualifying Salary will rise to $1,800. The Progressive Wage Credit Scheme will be enhanced and extended. More than 600,000 individuals took up SkillsFuture-supported training last year. Over 60,000 mid-career Singaporeans have benefitted from the Level-Up programme. The merger of SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) and Workforce Singapore (WSG) into a single integrated agency is a decisive structural move. It recognises that in an era of frequent job transitions, training and placement must operate as one system. In the logistics industry, there have been many success stories of candidates undergoing career conversion or job reskilling and finding a newfound purpose in the workforce. I am very grateful to the various trade associations and chambers, as well who work hand-in-hand with the Government agencies in securing jobs for workers in their sectors. But participation must translate into mobility.”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his response. In my interactions with rough sleepers, they have cited a few reasons, including a lack of privacy and personal space, as the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has mentioned. They have also cited instances of shelter rules and safety concerns. Would MSF have the proportion of rough sleepers who decline shelters due to rules, safety concerns or loss of autonomy? And my second supplementary question would be, will MSF publish utilisation rates of shelters alongside the rough sleepers count?”
“It is as important to cultivate digital restraint as it is to punish digital harm. Third, we should examine the appeals framework carefully. The Bill currently limits further appeals after an online safety Appeal Committee's decision. That finality provides efficiency but there is a risk that victims could still face drawn-out proceedings or repeated challenges from offenders exploiting procedural loopholes. We should ensure that the appeals process is fair but finite, one that safeguards due process while sparing victims prolonged distress. In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill – not because it is perfect, but because it is necessary. Because justice demands both accountability and mercy. Because our society should not allow people to be condemned twice: once by the Court, and again by the crowd. I ask that as we debate, we remember those caught in the crossfire of legal punishment and digital vengeance and build protections so that justice ends where it should.”
“Worse still, when harm hides under the guise of public interest or fair comment. If a so-called fair comment is sent repeatedly every day to a victim, their family, or their employer, it ceases to be comment. It becomes harassment. We must be clear about where legitimate expression ends and abuse begins and ensure that enforcement is consistent so victims do not hesitate to come forward for fear of uncertainty. If we allow perpetual online shaming, we deny redemption. We do not rehabilitate; we annihilate futures. Employers, neighbours, friends, all filtered by search results, by rumours, by what the digital crowd decided to publish. This Bill helps guard against that unending sentence. It lets the Courts and the Commissioner intervene. It says: the past does not have to be a life sentence in the digital realm. Mr Deputy Speaker, while I support the Bill, I would like to offer three modest suggestions for its implementation. First, enforcement must be accessible. Many victims of online harm may lack the legal literacy, confidence or financial means to approach the Commissioner or file for redress. The process should therefore be simple, affordable and trauma-informed with clear guidance and support for vulnerable groups such as youths, persons with disabilities and lower-income users. A centralised "one-stop" reporting channel that connects the Singapore Police Force, IMDA and the Commissioner's office could make seeking help far less intimidating. Second, prevention must go hand in hand with enforcement. We cannot legislate empathy, but we can educate for empathy. Public campaigns and digital citizenship programmes, especially in schools and workplaces, should teach not only what is illegal online, but what is unethical.”
“The video went viral almost instantly. In the rush to identify her, online users wrongly accused another woman of being that person. Within hours, her photographs, company details and even the names of her colleagues were posted across social media. She and her firm faced a barrage of racist and xenophobic abuse, even though she had absolutely nothing to do with the incident. The victim later described feeling bewildered and frightened, a bystander suddenly thrust into the centre of a public storm. It was a textbook case of doxxing and mistaken identity. And it showed how quickly online outrage can spill over into real harm, even for those completely uninvolved. If that is what can happen to an innocent person, imagine what happens to someone who has actually made a mistake, served their sentence and is trying to move on. We already have laws against doxxing in Singapore: amendments to the Protection from Harassment Act make it an offence to publish someone’s personal details with intent to cause harassment, alarm or distress. And yet, enforcement is limited: the Singapore Police Force investigated fewer than 10 cases of doxxing in the first four months of a recent year. Why the gap? Because doxxing often lies in a grey area where exposure is legal, for example, a court report, but the layering of personal data and commentary turns exposure into attack. It tests the limits of what laws can do alone. That is where this new Bill is crucial: it gives victims stronger recourse and empowers the Commissioner to put across platforms to remove or restrict content, require the right-of-reply, or label harmful material. I return to the question: when someone serves their sentence, should society still punish them? When does justice become vengeance?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak on the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Bill, not merely as legislation but as an assertion of how we wish our digital society to function: justly, humanely and with room for redemption. Let me start with a scenario many Singaporeans will recognise. Suppose a person commits a crime. The courts hear the evidence, the verdict is pronounced, sentence is spent. That is where justice should end. Yet, far too often, the second sentence is delivered online by self-appointed vigilantes. Almost immediately, commenters weave threads of public shaming: images, addresses, workplaces, friends – all exposed, shared, argued about. This is not journalism or public interest. It is doxxing, harassment, digital mob justice. In Singapore, we already see the signs. According to SHECARE@SCWO, victims of doxxing have risen from 13 in 2023 to 32 in 2024. Harassment and cyberbullying cases rose from 48 to 80 in the same period. Applications to the Protection from Harassment Court have increased steadily: from 346 in 2021, to 520 in 2022, 526 in 2023, and 631 in 2024. One legal practitioner recounted a man in his 30s with mild autism, whose personal traits, speech, appearance and insecurities were relentlessly attacked online in gaming communities. Whether or not the original crime was serious, the secondary assault online multiplies harm and deepens exclusion. The burden does not fall evenly. The person who already faces legal consequences now must contend with perpetual digital scrutiny, unable to move forward even after "paying their dues". And sometimes, the person targeted online is not even guilty at all. In 2020, many will remember the case of the woman who refused to wear a mask at Shunfu Mart and claimed to be a "sovereign".”
“I was at an MPS where I saw this resident whose husband had just passed away a year ago and as there was no will and no LPA before he lost mental capacity, it led to complex legal challenges and emotional distress. These things are preventable. But many still do not know what an LPA is. Some think it is only for the old, others worry it is about “giving up power.” But it is the opposite. LPAs when made are simple and cheap: Form 1 is fee-waived for citizens until March 2026. Yet many still do not know. An LPA protects your voice when you can no longer speak for yourself. And wills, especially for lower-income families, are equally crucial. For some lower-income families, a partially paid or older HDB flat may be their life’s only tangible asset. If that transfer is contested or mishandled, it could break a family apart. Canberra Community Club (CC) has had a series of will and LPA workshops, and I know more can be done to raise awareness.”
“It must also include our kopitiam stalls, our SMEs, our local family-run businesses that anchor the communities. Our Government’s support for digitalisation, training and productivity is crucial, but I believe more can be done to simplify access. For many small businesses, it is not about a lack of will but a lack of time and bandwidth to navigate grants and schemes. We need to bring transformation support down to the ground through community centres, town councils and grassroots networks so that businesses know help is not far away. At the same time, transformation must go hand-in-hand with protecting and uplifting our local workers. When industries change, it is workers who feel the disruption most keenly. Older workers especially fear being replaced or left behind. We must strengthen retraining pathways, wage support and on-the-job learning opportunities, so that transformation is not something done to workers, but with them. If we can help our local businesses thrive and ensure our workers grow alongside them, then transformation will not divide us – it will uplift us together. The next taboo I want to talk about is death. More specifically, wills and LPAs. I know, Mr Speaker, these are not exciting topics. But when we avoid them, families suffer. As of September 2024, only 233,000 Singaporeans aged 50 and above have made an LPA, a fraction of who stand to benefit from it. That is despite a campaign pushing for 240,000 by end-2025. Yet, more than one in 10 Singaporeans do not know what an LPA is and nearly 20% are not aware of advance care planning. This is not ignorance: it is risk.”
“Earlier this year, I met a resident during a house visit and he explained that his sister had taken multiple loans with both licensed and unlicensed moneylenders. This led to his family being harassed, afraid and needing help. It eroded their relationship leading to a breakup of the family. Cases like these are not rare. In the first half of 2024 alone, Credit Counselling Singapore (CCS) received about 1,150 requests for help from debt-distressed individuals, a surge of 18% compared to the second half of 2023. That is nearly 2,300 people in a single year needing help, each a signal that money struggles are growing, not shrinking. Back in 2019, CCS handled about 3,250 new cases. That number dropped during COVID but is now climbing back again. The trend is clear: financial health is not just a private matter; it is a public concern. We need to stop thinking of financial literacy as a “good-to-have.” It is a life skill as essential as reading or writing. We should be teaching this in primary schools, in National Service (NS), in SkillsFuture classes. Not just budgeting but how to read contracts, avoid scams, manage risks. And for those already in debt, we must offer a real way out. Simplifying the restructuring process. Provide case managers who walk with people. And most of all, remove the shame. You cannot rebuild a life when you are buried under guilt. But financial resilience is not only about individuals. It is also about whether our businesses and workers can adapt in a changing economy. Across Singapore, I have met business owners and workers who share similar worries: rising costs, digitalisation and the challenge of keeping up with rapid change. Transformation cannot just be about large firms or multinationals.”
“This is serious when we look at the numbers: In 2024, there were 314 suicide deaths in Singapore, with suicide remaining the leading cause of death among youth aged 10 to 29 for the sixth consecutive year. The national suicide rate stood at 5.91 per 100,000 residents. In recent years, it has been heartening to see communities coming together, various organisations that champion different causes coming together to help those in need. But we must first acknowledge that more can be done and more must be done. That we must teach a person to fish and not just provide them fish. Second chances only work if someone is willing to give a first “yes”– the landlord who does not judge your past, the human resources (HR) officer who looks at your potential, the auntie at the void deck who asks, “You okay or not?” instead of crossing the road in avoidance. We need more of those moments. That means relooking into our hiring culture, our housing rules and our public communications. Can we move from a society that punishes mistakes endlessly to one that corrects, supports and uplifts? Mr Speaker, I want to talk next about financial literacy because in Singapore, it is often the first step to a bad decision…and rarely the first thing we teach. I have met too many Singaporeans, especially in their 40s and 50s, who have fallen into debt because they did not understand the system. Not because they were reckless. But because no one ever taught them how credit works, what “compounding” means, or what it means or what to ask before signing a loan. Here is the reality: unpaid credit-card balances that incur interest – what MAS calls “rollover balances” – hit a record $8.3 billion in Q4 2024. That is not financial play; that is pressure.”
“I have been championing for second chances since 2011 and have seen first-hand the repercussions to the families of those incarcerated, with addictions, and who made wrong financial decisions. It often takes years for the families to recover if they recover at all. One wrong choice can lead to a lifetime of despair. It should not be that way. We have made good progress in some areas, for example, our prison’s recidivism rate has been steadily dropping. Our two-year recidivism rate is low by international standards and fell to 21.3% for the 2022 release cohort. Over the longer term, five-year recidivism has continued to decline – to 36.6% for the 2019 cohort, from 41.7% for 2015. We should keep going. But second chances are not only about statistics or systems. They are also about whether people feel life itself is worth holding onto. I met a young resident not long ago at my meet-the-people session (MPS). She came with her mother, and I noticed the scars of self-harm still healing on her arms. Her bank account had been misused by someone else, and the bank froze it. She was caught in a spiral – unable to access her own money, losing hope. We worked with the local police post and even wrote to the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) to try to resolve it. Last month, her father wrote to me and shared that his daughter was admitted into Institute of Mental Health (IMH). This is what it looks like when someone feels there is no way back. It is not just about mental health in the clinical sense. It is about society giving people reasons to believe tomorrow can still be better. When they do not see that, they give up. And the cost of silence, is lives.”
“Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion of Thanks to the President for his address. This is the first speech in this Chamber, and it means everything to me, not just because it marks the start of my Parliamentary journey, but also because it reflects the trust that Singaporeans, in particular, my Canberra constituents, to speak honestly, with heart and with purpose. The President, in his address, reminded us that Singapore can only stand tall if we act as one people, by putting "we" before "me". This unity, built not despite our diversity but through it, has always been our strength. Our future depends on nurturing a society where we look out for one another, where success is measured not just by what we achieve, but by what we do together for the common good. Personally, it is not enough to look at where someone starts. What matters just as much is the courage they show when life knocks them down and how we support them in getting back up. Today, I want to speak about something deeply personal: second chances. I want to talk about what it means to fall behind and how we, as a society, can help people stand tall again. I also want to touch on two things we often avoid discussing: financial literacy and planning for death – wills and Lasting Powers of Attorney (LPAs). Because all three are deeply connected. They are about control, dignity and hope. Let us start with second chances. I am not just talking about ex-offenders. I am talking about any Singaporean who has made a wrong turn: bad financial decisions, toxic relationships, addictions, even just giving up on themselves too early.”