Ng Ling Ling
Singapore
“My final appeal is to the Government, including the Ministry of Finance, to consider providing more budgets for MSF to gradually convert these social residential homes for the vulnerable to purpose-built Homes, like what the Ministry of Education (MOE) did for special education (SPED) schools over the past decades.”
“— everyone in social services who are working very hard to help our Singaporeans in need. I have two questions for the Minister. The first one is on social service research.”
“Chairman, I just have one clarification for the Minister for Health. I am really glad to hear about increase in healthcare subsidies for Singaporeans because it is always a good thing, but if it is on the back of continually increasing cost, then it begs the question of sustainability and the tax burden on our future generations.”
“For our Indian community, there are what we call Ayurveda, Yoga, Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy (AYUSH), which is increasingly known in India. My question is, does MOH sees wisdom in beginning studies and understanding into such traditional medicines of our Malay and Indian communities too?”
“My clarification is that, for important issues, like climate change and also earlier, the ageing population, we have Senior Minister-level and Deputy Prime Minister-level coordination, whether this whole class of issues on PDPA, PSGA, cybersecurity, cybercrimes should coordination be taken at a more senior level, at Deputy Prime Minister…”
“The total age dependency ratio that the World Bank uses is the ratio of young and elderly dependents who are generally economically inactive, compared to the number of people of working age. Despite this good data from the World Bank, with an ageing population and declining TFR, there is still cause for concern.”
The complete record
Every one of 310 lines we hold for Ng Ling Ling, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 7.
“Mr Speaker, I was born in the early 1970s, just seven years after our nation's Independence, to a typical Chinese family in Singapore then. I had the joy of growing up in a big extended family. My parents' HDB flat was near my aunt's flat and my grandmother's HDB shophouse, where other uncles and aunties lived in. I had a very happy childhood, playing with my cousins every day after school, as my mom and aunties would help in my grandmother's shop and the children would congregate there after school for homework and play, before returning to our respective homes each night. I grew up thinking that everyone has a family like mine and will desire such a family like mine. For this speech, I checked and noted that the Singapore's TFR was 2.98 when I was born in 1972. To prepare for this speech, I interviewed four groups of my Jalan Kayu residents and personal friends: first, singles who desire to marry but have not found the right person to marry yet; second, singles who desire to marry and have found the right person but have not married yet; third, young married couples who desire children but have none yet; and fourthly, young married couples who desire children and have them. Firstly, for my residents who are single and desire to marry but have not found the right person yet, I assure them that they are a majority and need not feel left out. According to the findings of the IPS pre-conference poll shared at the Singapore Perspectives Conference in January 2024, young Singaporeans are less likely to think it is necessary to marry and have children, but most still aspire to do so. The survey was done to get a sense of Singaporeans' attitudes and views towards issues like family, well-being and work.”
“So, I wonder if MOH can review the age criteria for the free annual flu vaccine and also include respiratory chronic diseases that is in remission, such as those who are on Healthier SG and did not report about a chronic disease that is in remission, like childhood asthma.”
“Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. When I raised this Parliamentary Question after reading about the HMPV cases rising in China in early January, I would never have expected that my own mom will be hospitalised due to HMPV for three days just before our Chinese New Year reunion dinner. I am grateful that her symptoms were picked up by an ear, nose and throat (ENT) specialist for a consultation that is actually unrelated to flu. The good news is that she made it out from the hospital to join us for the reunion dinner. Sir, I have two supplementary questions on this. One is that I used to receive from the Ministry of Health (MOH), SMSes to citizens, like myself, a reminder to enrol on the Healthier SG, a reminder to get the vaccine booster for COVID-19 when cases rose. And the last SMS that I received would have been around May. I wonder if MOH can consider sending similar SMS when there is a new flu variant or a flu that is increasing in cases overseas, so that citizens can be more aware of what are the protections that need to be done? My second supplementary question is that, under Healthier SG, the general practitioner shared with me that MOH's fully subsidised annual flu vaccine are only given to the higher-risk groups under five and above 65, with respiratory-related chronic diseases. Those who are 40 to 65, for example, with high cholesterol, will not get a free flu vaccine. So, just a couple of days ago, it was reported in the news that a high-profile, 48-year-old Taiwanese celebrity died unexpectedly from a flu complication when holidaying in Japan.”
“I hope the Government can further encourage adoption across different demographics, especially among the elderly. These mechanisms can complement the issuance of ROs to address cases where scams progress despite these safeguards. Greater collaboration between financial institutions and law enforcement agencies, through public education campaigns, will be essential to maximise the impact of these tools in protecting individuals from financial harm. Mr Speaker, to conclude, this Bill represents a proactive step in protecting Singaporeans from the undue impact of scams, which could result in irreversible losses for individuals. I believe that its success depends on our ability to ensure ROs are implemented effectively, strike a delicate balance in protecting individuals without overstepping into personal autonomy and responsibility and minimise unintended consequences that may burden victims while enhancing public awareness and education. Moving forward, we must adopt a collective approach, involving financial institutions, telecommunications companies, technology platforms and individuals themselves to combat scams comprehensively. This Bill must, thus, serve not only as a legal safeguard, but also inspire a broader culture of vigilance and resilience against scams. Together, we can protect the vulnerable from the risk of scams and strengthen our society against such evolving threats. Sir, notwithstanding my considerations raised, I support the Bill.”
“Additional scam types, such as malware-enabled fraud and cryptocurrency scams, should also be included in a broader framework to address evolving tactics of scammers. This will allow stakeholders to robustly implement targeted measures to reduce the vulnerabilities in digital ecosystem and allow for collaborative efforts between law enforcers and technology platforms to disrupt fraudulent activities at source. Lastly, I understand that clause 5 of the Bill allows for ROs to be in force for up to 30 days; and clause 7 provides for appeals against the decision to issue a RO. On this aspect, I am keen to understand the unintended consequences that may be caused by the issuing of RO, on how we can mitigate the potential risks of the ROs while minimising inconvenience. I hope to clarify if there would be mechanisms to allow individuals issued with ROs to access limited funds for daily expenses, for example, up to a reasonable cap while investigation is underway. Currently, the Government has worked with banks to provide mechanisms, such as the Kill Switch and Money Lock, as safeguards to protect the public. These measures provide banks' customers with proactive options to secure accounts through either freezing their bank accounts if they suspect their accounts are compromised or set aside a sum of monies that cannot be transferred out of their bank account via online means. It is a positive sign when more than 181,000 customers have used the Money Lock to protect their money to set aside close to $15.8 billion in savings, out of reach of potential scammers. If greater public awareness and education on Money Lock and Kill Switch can help to support the effectiveness of these safeguards, we should do more to help our Singaporeans to safeguard their assets.”
“I support the issuance of ROs to protect individuals from losing their money to scammers. As scam victims are often manipulated or pressured into acting against their own interests, such intervention can help prevent further harm. While the Bill seeks to safeguard individuals from scams, there are practical concerns about the balance between protecting victims and respecting their autonomy. For instance, making decisions for victims, especially before a thorough investigation can be initiated, could lead to the possibility of misjudgement for ROs to be applied. I understand that an RO can be issued if there is a reasonable belief that the individual will make money transfers to the scammer. I would like to ask MHA, how "reasonable belief" will be determined when assessing the risk of transfer to scammers? Will there be thresholds for evidence or is the judgement based on an Officer's discretion? Furthermore, if the Police are unable to convince a potential victim to halt a particular transaction, should the responsibility, ultimately, rest with the individual if they fall victim to a scam? How would MHA ensure that the issuance of an RO balance between protecting scam victims while respecting their autonomy and personal responsibility? I also hope that the Government can consider expanding the current SRF for phishing scams to include a broader range of stakeholders and measures. Aside from financial institutions and telecos, to include e-commerce and e-payment platforms, remittance companies and social media companies. These entities can contribute to scam prevention by enhancing account verification process, monitoring suspicious activities and implementing robust measures to safeguard users from fraudulent schemes.”
“Under clause 3 of the Bill, RO is limited to the extent of directing banks in: one, to prohibit a transfer or withdrawal of money from any bank account of a scam victim maintained with that bank; or two, to prohibit the granting or allowing a drawdown of any credit facility to the scam victim. Nonetheless, scammers today have become innovative in exploiting newer platforms, such as cryptocurrency exchanges, remittance companies or e-commerce and e-wallet providers. Scams involving crypto assets are also not easily recovered as the asset can be quickly transferred overseas, with limited jurisdiction oversight, from Singapore. This makes it easy for scammers to use such for anonymous transactions to untraceable accounts in their scam exploits. Similarly, remittance services also play a role in cross-border scams, such as the recent investigations into the suspected fraudulent transactions by a remittance company operating in Chinatown. Without restricting potential victims access to these platforms might result in scammers shifting their operations from traditional banking transfers to the use of crypto-assets or remittance services, for example. As such, I would like to ask if MHA will consider expanding the scope of ROs to include platforms, such as cryptocurrency exchanges, remittance companies or e-commerce and e-wallet providers? Also, what mechanism could be in place to ensure the adaptability of the Bill in protecting victims when scammers shift to less-regulated financial platforms to conduct their scams? The key aspect of this Bill is to protect the victims through empowering Police Officers to issue ROs to banks in Singapore to prohibit certain bank transactions and the use of credit facilities temporarily.”
“Mr Speaker, the scam and cybercrime situation in Singapore has become a cause of concern, with an increase of 18% to 28,751 cases from January to June 2024, compared to 24,367 cases in the same period in 2023. Over the first half of last year, victims lost more than $385.6 million, which is a substantive sum of losses that impact victims very significantly, some of whom are my residents in Jalan Kayu. Given the extensive impact and losses of scam cases in Singapore, I am supportive of the introduction of the Protection from Scams Bill, which will enable the Police to better protect targets from ongoing scams who refuse to believe that they are being scammed. Nevertheless, I believe that the protection of individuals from scam should not solely rest on the Government, but there is a shared effort by the financial institutions, telecommunication companies and the public at large, in minimising the likelihood for people to fall prey to scam tactics. I will raise considerations on three key aspects of the Bill. First, on the scope of the ROs to support effective implementation; secondly, on how the Government needs to balance between safeguarding individuals' assets with fostering shared responsibility; and finally, on strategies to minimise unintended consequences, such as efforts in reducing inconvenience, maintaining public trust and enhancing public awareness. Firstly, I am seeking to understand the effectiveness and the scope of RO in addressing evolving scams. The Bill currently only allows for the issuance of ROs for scam cases conducted substantially via digital or telecommunication channels.”
“Although CMC has a high mediation success rate of 80%, many residents are unwilling to participate due to the voluntary nature of mediation, making it difficult to thoroughly resolve issues. Therefore, I support the establishment of CRU, which gives them the authority to issue mediation directions, mandating disputing parties to accept mediation. This will help encourage more residents to participate in mediation and prevent disputes from escalating. (In English): Mr Speaker, in conclusion, I believe that the Community Disputes Resolution (Amendment) Bill has the potential to resolve community disputes more efficiently and amicably by ensuring mediation and empowering public servants in the new CRU to address complex cases. By piloting and eventually scaling up the CRU with public servants given the appropriate authorities, ensuring safeguards in mandatory psychiatry treatment order and promoting CDRT as a final resort, while ensuring the enforceability of CDRT orders, will all contribute to residents being able to benefit from more resolved disputes and having a positive experience through the process. Notwithstanding my considerations raised, I support the Bill.”
“Although I understand and support the initiation of the order by the Court on an application by the DG of CRU, I would like to seek clarifications regarding the safeguards for confidentiality and protection to be put in place on residents undergoing a mandatory treatment order. Lastly, I am encouraged by the statistics from MinLaw regarding the effectiveness of CDRT. As shared by the Ministry, between January 2021 to December 2023, there are only 14 enforcement orders made by the CDRT. This shows the high rate of compliance with CDRT orders. However, as shared by the Ministry, despite the effectiveness of CDRT, similar to the CMC route, many residents might not choose to pursue CDRT enforcement proceedings even if they have valid grounds to do so, due to the perception of cost and tedious process involved in this legal avenue. In this regard, I would like to ask what has been done to simplify the CDRT enforcement process and make it easier for residents to ensure non-compliance is effectively acted upon. Mr Speaker, allow me to speak some words in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, I support the Community Disputes Resolution (Amendment) Bill. This Bill encourages residents to use community mediation at the early stages of disputes and establishes a CRU, empowering CRO with enforcement and basic mediation experience to intervene and investigate such disputes. I believe this will lead to more effective resolution of community disputes. During my weekly Meet-the-People Session, I often see residents repeatedly complaining about noise and hoarding issues caused by their neighbours. These problems often lack long-term solutions.”
“In the same way, complainants who act in good faith may face retaliation from unreasonable neighbors whom they raised a legitimate complaint against. I would like to ask if more proactive measures by the CRU could be implemented to protect individuals involved in disputes from harassment or retaliation. This could include offering some form of legal protection to them against the other party when directed mediation process is ongoing. Secondly, one of the more sensitive aspects of the Bill is the provision of mandatory psychiatric treatment for individuals whose mental health conditions contribute to unreasonable interference to their neighbours in a new section 12A. Currently, in my constituency, for complex neighbor disputes of undue interference caused by individuals who are suspected to be suffering from psychiatric conditions, we involve the IMH Community Mental Health Team or the Community Intervention Teams from social service agencies to assess individuals, while respecting their privacy and require that they or their family members provide the necessary informed consent for the mental health assessment to be done. However, in our current approach, obtaining consent could be challenging. As such, provisions in section 12A can be useful in bringing resolution to such circumstances. Nonetheless, I believe that unless individuals become an immediate danger to themselves or others, the confidentiality of their psychiatric condition and their medical treatment rights should be duly protected and respected, even from parties involved in the disputes.”
“We will usually, then, advise the residents to further approach the CMC to seek assistance by trained mediators. Nonetheless, given the voluntary nature of the process, most residents shared that their neighbours, whom they have disputes with, are mostly unwilling to attend the mediation. This usually further frustrates the residents, especially the complainants, as they feel that they have no further recourse to resolve the conflicts and some remain fearful of backlash from neighbours whom they had raised complaints against. The new section 13M of the Bill provides for a Mediation Direction that can be issued by a CRO to parties involved in a complaint or dispute. Additionally, failure to comply with this Mediation Direction can be constituted as an offence under the law. I am very supportive of this new initiative as it will ensure that more individuals enter necessary mediation as a course of action in resolving their disputes. However, I would like to raise two concerns. Firstly, the Bill allows for a complaint to be dismissed if it is deemed "trivial, frivolous or vexatious or not made in good faith". While I understand the need to deal with baseless complaints, I am concerned that individuals with legitimate grievances may have their cases prematurely dismissed. Thus, I would like to ask how a fair process of evaluation of such cases will be carried out by the newly formed CRU. Secondly, I am concerned for the privacy and safety of individuals who may have been targeted for vexatious complaints. While the Bill addresses the dismissal of frivolous complaints, there is little mention of measures to safeguard the privacy and safety of individuals from being repeatedly harassed by baseless, malicious complaints.”
“Mr Speaker, I raised a Parliamentary Question in January this year to the Minister for Law on the number of applications for mediation on disputes between neighbours that are submitted to the CMC and the percentage that led to actual mediation and successful resolution. In the reply, I note that out of the 1,200 to 1,900 cases received from 2021 to 2023, less than 30% of such cases proceeded to mediation, but for the cases that had, more than 80% were amicably resolved after the mediation. This data shows that mediation is indeed an effective method to resolve neighbourly disputes but the take-up rate, based purely on voluntary volition, has been low. As such, I rise to support the Community Dispute Resolution (Amendment) Bill as it will encourage the usage of community mediation as a tool to resolve disputes at an early stage while empowering relevant public servants to investigate complex and hard-to-resolve cases of noise disputes and hoarding. Notwithstanding this, I would like to raise clarifications on three aspects: one, the role of the CRU; two, some concerns about mandatory treatment order; and three, using CDRT route as a last resort. One of the key amendments in the Bill is the introduction of a CRU, which will provide CROs and other dedicated personnel the powers to intervene in certain community disputes and resolve cases. During my Meet-the-People Sessions, I often encounter residents who seek help to intervene on recurrent and perennial noise or other disturbances by their neighbours. What we usually do is, first, set up a house visit with grassroots volunteers helping to mediate and try to resolve the dispute between both parties amicably. However, in some instances, situations may improve for just a short period and then become recurrent again.”
“Notwithstanding my considerations raised, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the MediShield Life Scheme (Amendment) Bill.”
“Furthermore, I would like to suggest an outcome-based subsidy model for those with chronic conditions. Under this model, individuals could receive additional subsidies if they demonstrate improved health outcomes over time, such as better control of blood pressure or blood sugar levels. This would serve as an incentive for individuals to actively manage their conditions and could, in the long run, lead to reduced claims on MediShield Life by decreasing complications related to chronic diseases. Mr Deputy Speaker, the MediShield Life Scheme has been an important policy tool to support Singaporeans in managing large hospitalisation bills and ensuring that essential healthcare services remain affordable to all. Today, as we are faced with the dual pressures of an ageing population and rising medical costs, the latest adjustments on policy claim limits and expansion of claimable items towards advanced therapeutics, as well as outpatient and home-based care, signal the Government's commitment towards supporting Singaporeans to care for their health and well-being. As we continue to navigate those challenges, I believe that the healthcare needs of vulnerable groups, including our seniors and lower-income households, must be prioritised. These groups would likely feel the impact of rising premiums most over the longer term, especially if they do not have enough MediSave funds. Therefore, I hope that the Government can ensure that resources for these groups remain accessible and sufficient. I also hope that the Government can use this as an opportunity to consider how incentives in MediShield Life premiums and claims can better support preventive measures, as we work towards more sustainable healthcare for future generations.”
“Ensuring accessibility to this support without additional administrative application burdens on the applicants' part, would help safeguard our seniors from the risk of being uninsured due to financial constraints or the lack of literacy to navigate application process. Finally, I would like to touch on incentivising preventive care using MediShield Life. On various occasions, many of my colleagues in this House, have shared their views on how we can incentivise residents to take up preventive care measures by offering incentives or premium discounts. I am glad that the Government has accepted the Council's recommendation to pilot offering premium discounts to those who lead healthier lifestyle, such as through Healthpoints in the HPB's Healthy 365 programme. I believe that financial incentives would be useful in empowering individuals to act according to their preference for a healthier lifestyle. This approach not only encourages preventive action, but may also, over time, reduce the burden of claims on MediShield Life, ultimately helping to contain premium burden for everyone. In this regard, I hope MOH can consider broadening the range of preventive actions that qualify for incentives, beyond physical activities alone. For example, regular health screenings, vaccinations and active management of chronic conditions could also be rewarded, as they play a crucial role in detecting and addressing health issues early. Additionally, could MOH consider offering a tiered discount system, where individuals, who consistently participate in preventive care initiatives or over multiple years might earn progressively larger discounts on their premiums? Such measures would further encourage longer-term commitment to healthier living.”
“I would now like to focus on a key concern that impacts our residents the most – the adjustments of the MediShield Life premiums. With the rise in policy claim limits and the expanded scope of coverage to include high-cost treatments, premium adjustments are an inevitable measure to maintain the sustainability of MediShield Life. However, this increase in premiums will particularly impact older Singaporeans, some of whom may not have accumulated sufficient MediSave funds over their working lifetime to cover these rising costs. While the Government has assured us that measures are in place to mitigate these changes, I would like to understand more about how MOH plans to better support our lower-income seniors, especially those who may have minimal MediSave balances in the long term. I fully support the Government's allocation of an APS amounting to $80 million, as it will provide critical support to those who are unable to afford their premiums even after premium subsidies or those who lack family support. However, I am interested to know how effectively this support reaches those in need. May I ask, on average annually, how many individuals have applied and been approved for the APS to cover their MediShield Life premiums so far? Additionally, given that some seniors may face challenges in navigating the application process, can there be a proactive system to identify those who will have insufficient MediSave funds for auto-inclusion for the APS? I believe this would be especially helpful for seniors whose MediSave balances may become depleted over time due to frequent hospitalisations and those who lack family support.”
“My concerns lie with the impact of increased deductibles on lower-income households, especially lower-income seniors who are staying alone, as well as those with frequent outpatient needs. These families and individuals may not have sufficient MediSave to cover the deductibles and may end up having an increased out-of-pocket cashflow burden. I hope that MOH can consider additional support or a tiered deductible structure for such cases through some forms of means-testing of their household incomes. This will help patients to worry less about their out-of-pocket payments if they have insufficient MediSave funds. Additionally, I also hope that MOH can consider including Flexi-MediSave in the consideration of the deductibles that are currently calculated. Many residents of mine in Jalan Kayu, who have issues with their medical bills, spoke to me about the limits imposed on the Flexi-MediSave, increasing their out-of-pocket cash payments. These are especially so, for those who have frequent Specialist Outpatient Clinic appointments for regular reviews of their medical conditions. Besides deductibles, I also understand that MOH will be introducing a tiered co-insurance structure ranging from 3% to 10% for outpatient treatments, which mirrors the current co-insurance component for the inpatient or day surgery care. I do support this move to ensure large outpatient bills remain affordable for subsidised patients. Nevertheless, I hope to understand how MOH will determine the tiered co-insurance. What will be the specific threshold that will dictate that co-insurance percentage to be used for the outpatient bill and how is this threshold calculated by MOH?”
“This allows patients to benefit from outpatient facilities as outpatient claim limits are also refreshed to fully cover nine in 10 subsidised bills. With the expansion of outpatient coverage, patients will also have more access to convenient care options beyond the traditional hospital settings. Similarly, I am supportive of the expanded coverage of high-cost treatments and high-cost drugs for blood conditions and conditions with childhood onset, that are clinically effective and cost-effective. This will ensure that these medications remain accessible to those who need them, while keeping insurance premiums and overall bill costs affordable. Nevertheless, given the newly recommended claim limits mentioned for high-cost treatments, I would like to ask how would MOH address concerns about the sustainability of covering such treatments in the long run? I have several clarifications to make regarding the expanded eligibility and the impact on service access. I would like to ask how are outpatient services selected to be included in MediShield Life coverage and what cost-effectiveness assessment has been done to assess these newly covered outpatient services? I would also like to ask MOH what safeguards are in place to control cost increases resulting from a higher volume of outpatient claims to be expected? Additionally, how does MOH plan to balance the inclusion of a wide range of outpatient services while preventing over-utilisation, which may drive up overall healthcare costs in the long term? Secondly, I understand that MOH intends to increase both the inpatient deductible by up to $1,500 and the outpatient deductible by up to $500 per year.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, the challenges that confront healthcare in Singapore are two-fold: the ageing population and the rising costs of healthcare. The recommendations and inputs of the MediShield Life Council in its 2024 review are timely in ensuring co-insurance and deductibles in MediShield Life remain affordable for Singaporeans, while considering the shift in healthcare delivery from hospital care to outpatient and home-based care, as well as the advances in medical technologies. I welcome the changes and support the latest MediShield Life Scheme (Amendment) Bill. Notwithstanding this, I would like to raise some clarifications relating to: one, the enhanced eligibility and coverage expansion for outpatient treatments and advanced therapeutics; two, deductible and co-insurance changes; three, premium adjustments; and four, emphasis on preventive care. Firstly, I am glad to know that to support the rising costs of medical bills for Singaporeans, the Government will be increasing existing inpatient and day surgery claim limits on MediShield Life to fully cover nine in 10 subsidised bills. I welcome the increase in claim limits as it will ensure that Singaporeans can continue to receive adequate support during critical hospitalisation without compromising on the scheme's sustainability. Additionally, the Bill has made amendments to include newly defined terms such as "approved medical institution", "claimable medical treatment or services" and "licensable healthcare service". By referring healthcare providers to those licensed under the Healthcare Services Act 2020, the new definitions broaden the range of providers, such as outpatient facilities, community care providers and potentially, even home-based medical care that will be eligible for MediShield Life coverage.”
“While I agree with the amendments to enhance operational efficiency, I seek the Ministry's clarifications on how the process will be initiated by the casinos and what is the difference in timeline of information sharing compared to the current legislation. How would the GRA know if either casino has failed to initiate such important information sharing and what other surveillance or inspection measures does the GRA have, to identify such risky patrons in the two casinos? In conclusion, Mdm Deputy Speaker, consequences of problem gambling and illegal acts in casinos not only impact the individuals involved but also cause severe hardship to the innocent family members and negative impact to our society. As such, strengthening our casino control legislation will be a step in the right direction. Madam, notwithstanding the clarifications that I have raised, I support the Bill.”
“The GRA can also allow new betting instruments to be used as chips in casinos in future, such as virtual credits, under the proposed changes. To pre-empt future changes in the gambling landscape, the Bill will also expand the scope of activities that the GRA can regulate in the casinos to cover betting and lotteries. While the GRA has clarified that there are currently no plans to allow casinos in Singapore to carry out such betting and lottery activities, will the provision have a reverse effect of casinos considering such activities within the legislative framework, leading to more gaming activities than what the authorities will foresee, instead, in the casinos. In addition, regarding the change that will allow the GRA to assess which instruments can be regarded as chips, I would like to clarify whether virtual assets, such as cryptocurrency, can later be deemed a type of betting instrument and controlled by GRA's approval and how is the GRA keeping up with the understanding and supervision of new betting instruments. Lastly, the proposed changes to the law will allow the two casino operators in Singapore to share patrons' information with each other to tackle money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing. The operators are, currently, not allowed to share personal data directly with each other without patrons' consent, due to the Personal Data Protection Act. Instead, the GRA needs to facilitate this exchange, which is mentioned by the Ministry as operationally inefficient and impedes the operators from acting quickly. This is in line with the efforts to tackle money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing. It also fits with Singapore's recent moves to best align with the guidelines of the FATF.”
“While I support the principle of increasing penalties for deterrent, often, the families with members who are problem gamblers are usually already facing immense financial distress when they need to apply for such a Family Visit Limit on the problem gambling family member. As such, can the Ministry clarify what will be the considerations when a fine is to be imposed or will a jail term be a better deterrent instead. My concern is that the burden of the fine of $10,000 will usually fall onto the innocent family members, causing even more downward spiral in their financial situation, instead of the problem gambler himself or herself. In addition, penalties may also be increased for minors faking their ages to get into casinos. I will like to ask, how many of such cases have occurred so far. Minors refusing to give particulars, such as their age, or using false evidence of age to enter casinos, may be fined up to $10,000 under the Bill. This is a 10-fold increase from a maximum fine of $1,000 under the current regulations. Again, will a probation sentence be more appropriate for this group of offenders instead of a high financial penalty, which most minors will not be able to afford to pay and the burden will again fall onto the rest of the family who are innocent of the offence. Next, the proposed changes will also extend GRA's regulation of casino activities to cover betting and lotteries, beyond games of chance. The Bill will also allow gaming software, which can be deployed on mobile devices, to be approved by the GRA if the need arises. This follows the GRA's observation of gaming machine manufacturers developing software, without the hardware, which can be used on off-the-shelf devices, such as tablets.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, since the Casino Control Act was last amended in 2012, there have been considerable advances in technology and the way gambling and casino operations are delivered. As such, I agree that the amendment Bill to take steps to further deter casino-related crime and protect the integrity of gaming operations is a timely one. Nonetheless, I will like to raise clarifications pertaining to three areas: one, on Family Visit Limit; two, on future-proofing regulations; and three, on sharing of information among casino operators. Firstly, under the proposed changes in the amendment Bill, breaching a Family Visit Limit for casinos becomes a punishable offence. An EP can be fined up to $10,000 and jailed up to 12 months if found guilty. A Family Visit Limit can be applied by family members to limit the number of times a person can enter a casino, if his or her gambling behaviour has caused harm to them, including financial and emotional distress, neglect of family responsibilities or relationship breakdowns. Based on the data shared by the Ministry, there are about five individuals each year on average that breached Family Visit Limits. However, behind each of this breach can be a very broken family situation with severe debts and relational strains to the family members. Currently, it is an offence to breach an Exclusion Order by Law, Third Party Exclusion Order, Third Party Visit Limit or Family Exclusion Order. With the amendment Bill, the NCPG and its committees will be able to immediately substitute an Exclusion Order with a Visit Limit, and vice versa, instead of waiting one to two months under the current legislation. The Bill proposed to criminalise violation of Family Visit Limit at Singapore casinos.”
“I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to Parliamentary colleagues – Mr Louis Ng, Ms Poh Li San, Ms Hany Soh and Mr Edward Chia – for their hard work and efforts in bringing this Bill to fruition today. Their dedication and hard work in engaging with relevant stakeholders have been instrumental in shaping this piece of legislation. I hope that the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill will become a pillar to sustain our collective work towards reducing food wastage, supporting food-insecure communities and fostering a culture of generosity and responsibility. Notwithstanding my clarifications raised, I support the Bill.”
“I hope the Bill can also address potential penalties if any of the conditions stated in section 4 is seriously breached to safeguard the public who are potential recipients, especially if they are the vulnerable communities. I would thus like to ask if the Government has considered any potential penalties for the donors if any conditions set in section 4 have been seriously breached. And will this be a graduated scale of penalties based on the severity of the breach, ranging from minor infractions to serious violations to give assurance to potential food donors? Finally, I believe that establishing a clear and accessible mediation mechanism will be crucial in resolving conflicts efficiently and fairly. As such, I would like to also clarify if there will be mediation or resolution processes made available to both donors and recipients to address any grievances or misunderstandings arising from possible disputes. I hope that the Government can consider providing a mediating channel that is reliable for all donors and recipients to address any issues that may arise. Additionally, for small-scale donors who may not have the resources to navigate complex legal disputes, will the Government provide support mechanisms to assist them? Providing such support for smaller donors will encourage broader participation in food donation efforts, ensuring that even the smallest contributions can make a difference. Mr Speaker, as I conclude, I would like to emphasise the significance of the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill in helping to solve the country’s food waste problem while mitigating the fear of liability and encouraging more potential donors to step forward. This will help to foster a more giving and compassionate community in the long term.”
“Specifically, donors will be protected from liability for any death or personal injury resulting from the consumption of donated food, provided that: one, the food was safe and suitable at the time it left the donor's possession; two, the recipient was informed of any specific handling requirements that is required to ensure that the food remained safe and suitable for consumption after it left the donor’s possession; three, the recipient was informed of any time limits for the food's safety; and lastly, the donor complied with all food safety and hygiene laws. It is essential to establish a clear oversight mechanism to ensure that donors adhere to the safety and hygiene protocols required by the Bill. As such, I hope to understand how the conditions under section 4 will be administered and monitored to ensure compliance by all stakeholders involved. Will MSE be looking at any specific statutory board, such as SFA, to be responsible for ensuring that the four conditions are met for the liability to be waived? Additionally, will MSE be the authority to revoke the waiver of liability if breaches, serious breaches occur? And will the investigation process into serious breaches be conducted similarly to the process for contamination and gastroenteritis incidents? I also hope that MSE can work with stakeholders to provide training and guidance to potential food donors to help them understand and comply with the requirements of the Bill. This will also foster a culture of responsibility and encourage ethical behaviour among potential food donors. Secondly, even though the Bill’s main intention is to address the fear of liabilities that prevent food businesses from donating their unsold food.”
“Like several of my hon Parliamentary colleagues have mentioned, I note that there have been similar legislative efforts by other countries to encourage food donation. In the US, the Federal Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act enacted in 1996 protects donors from liability when donating to non-profit organisations. Similarly, Italy’s Good Samaritan Law protects those who donate food in good faith from civil and criminal consequences of their actions and limits their liability arising from food safety rules. Instead of legislation, some other countries, such as the UK’s Courtauld Commitment 2030, is a voluntary agreement amongst stakeholders to reduce food wastage by 50% by 2030. Although there may be different approaches to encouraging food donation, many local businesses prefer legislation that reduces their fear of liability and reputation damage, while helping to balance their corporate social responsibility with any potential legal obligations. As we move forward, it is thus essential to ensure that the implementation of the Bill can effectively address the concerns raised by potential food donors while ensuring food safety for the recipients. Hence, I would like to seek clarifications on the administration, imposition of penalties, if any, in serious incidents of breaches and possible mediation process for conditions outlined in section 4 of the Bill. The Bill provides a waiver of criminal and civil liability for donors of food, under four key conditions.”
“Mr Speaker, according to NEA's data, food waste accounted for 11% of the total waste generated by Singapore last year. I thus welcome the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill as I believe that it will further encourage the donation of surplus or unsold food to the needy, tackling the problem of food wastage in a meaningful and purposeful manner through redistribution to communities, families and individuals in need. Notwithstanding this, I would like to raise some clarifications on the implementation of the proposed section 4 on the waiver of criminal and civil liability. Let me start by first acknowledging the good work of various community organisations in food rescue and redistribution, such as Food from the Heart and GoodHood. These non-profit organisations have been at the forefront of addressing food insecurity among our vulnerable communities through ground-up support for food programmes. Food from the Heart, for instance, has been collecting unsold and excess food and groceries from supermarkets and bakeries, and distributing them to those who struggle with food insecurity. Their initiatives, such as the School Goodie Bag and Community Food Pack programmes, have benefited the less fortunate families and children in our communities. Similarly, GoodHood has revolutionised the concept of neighbourhood sharing through their "GoodHood.SG: Neighbourhood App", encouraging residents to share surplus food and other resources with their residents, with their fellow neighbours in need. Such ground-up approach not only fosters neighbourliness but also encourage Singaporeans to actively participate in the sustainability cause. My residents in Jalan Kayu have benefited from many of such food donation efforts and I am deeply grateful to them.”
“Speaker, I thank the Minister for a very comprehensive update of the work that the CAMH Taskforce has done. I would like to express my appreciation for this task force because with the record low total fertility rate (TFR) in Singapore still continuing, every child is a precious one in Singapore. So, these initiatives are really important. My supplementary questions are: firstly, with the many agencies across health, social and education involved in delivering over 40 initiatives, with 28 already implemented, how does the task force think that a mother who is coping with all the pregnancy demands and delivering her first baby would be able to have a more seamless experience, whether Health Hub maybe will be the digital platform that they can see all their case notes and intervention for coordination for their health? Secondly, it is wonderful to have regional clusters doing community health talks. But because several of the initiatives are now still in the pilot phase, can HPB, being a national agency, take on maybe baseline training where most of the community centres can offer this, so that we can cover as many of these mothers and children as we can?”
“The virtual nature of these assets would mean that physical inspection is often challenging, especially for third-party vendors that operate overseas. Also, security measures are often under the control and configurations implemented by cloud providers. Although the new Bill requires at least one of the physical computing resources of the cloud service provider that support the virtual system to be deployed locally, the question remains whether the risk can be well-managed. Therefore, greater specifications may be needed as to how owner responsibility is demarcated from those of cloud service providers. Although CII operators in essential service sectors remain answerable to CSA for any lapses, the shared nature of digital services complicates the accountability framework. We need to ensure that there are no overlapping roles or responsibilities, especially when third-party cloud services are involved. Mdm Deputy Speaker, in closing, the amendment Bill exemplifies our Government's commitment to proactively defend and safeguard our essential services from cyber-attacks which may disrupt our way of life, especially with fast-changing developments in the cyber threat landscape. Notwithstanding my considerations raised, I support the Bill.”
“Under the Bill, CSA will be able to designate and regulate ESCI for cybersecurity. The obligations imposed on these entities will not be the same as the levels of those of CIIs. While autonomous universities have been cited as one example of ESCIs, can the Ministry give greater clarity of what other entities can be designated by CSA to be under these new classifications? For example, will a not-for-profit social service agency taking in statutory cases of youth offenders or child protection have any probability of being designated as ESCI? While ESCI are not CII and the obligations imposed on the ESCI will not be at the same levels as that of the CIIs, will there be guidelines provided by the CSA to give more specifics as some entities, such as smaller not-for-profit organisations may not have the capabilities or resources to bear the additional cybersecurity compliance burden? Lastly, the Bill also requires companies, such as cloud service providers and data centres to be responsible for the cybersecurity of the digital infrastructure that they manage. This includes adhering to cybersecurity codes and standards of practice, as well as reporting prescribed cybersecurity incidents to CSA, which will also not be at the level of a CII. Amendments in section 2, particularly 2(3) and 2(3)(d) introduced definitions of "virtual computers" and "virtual computer systems" as well as defining the "owner" in relation to a provider-owned CII, third-party-owned CII or system of temporary cybersecurity concern that is a virtual computer or a virtual computer system. Most of these records and databases are uploaded into cloud-based applications, which are increasingly adopted for their scalability and efficiency.”
“While I understand that doing so will empower CSA to be more aware of cyber threats that could disrupt essential services and work with CII owners to proactively protect those services further, I would like to raise practical challenges that healthcare providers may face. In the healthcare space, entities can differ significantly in operational size and digital capabilities, such as a restructured public hospital compared with a small private general practitioner (GP) clinic. The question is, whether both entities will be subject to the same requirements under the Bill? As GP clinics are encouraged to step up to take in more patients under the national Healthier SG initiative, I understand that many are also attempting to digitalise for better operational efficiency. Will the higher requirements discourage smaller healthcare providers from digitalisation? Will a more tiered requirement be more appropriate in such a critical sector for our ageing population? Perhaps, the Government can consider more sector-specific support to help better calibrate responsibilities for owners of CIIs with small, medium and large operations, considering the differing degree of complexity, nuances of virtual systems and third-party ownership in their context. Another proposal in the Bill is to allow CSA to designate and regulate ESCIs. ESCIs hold sensitive information or perform a function of national interest so disruption to their services could potentially have adverse effects on the defence, foreign relations, economy, public health, public safety or public order of Singapore. In addition, CSA will further create two new classes of regulated entities: ESCI and FDI. These two classes will be subjected to "light touch" regulations as they are not CII.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I welcome amendments to the Cybersecurity Act 2018 through this Cybersecurity (Amendment) Bill. This will help Singapore keep pace with the developments in the cyber threat landscape and to ensure that we can continue securing Singapore's cyberspace as well as safeguard our evolving digital economy and digital way of life. I would like to raise three clarifications to better understand the obligations of entities that will be affected by various parts of this Bill. Firstly, the Bill will update existing provisions relating to cybersecurity of CII, to ensure continuous delivery of essential services. The amendment will require companies that provide digital infrastructure services that are foundational to our economy or way of life, to shoulder more responsibility for the cybersecurity of their digital infrastructure. The CII are defined as energy, water, banking and finance, healthcare, transport, info-communication, media, security and emergency services and the Government in the Bill. I note that a key aspect of the Bill is to ensure that CII owners remain responsible for the cybersecurity and cyber resilience of their systems, while embracing new technological innovations, such as the use of cloud computing and new business models, through higher requirements of incident reporting. At present, CII owners are only required to report cybersecurity incidents concerning the critical infrastructure and computer systems under their control that are interconnected or communicate with their infrastructure. With the amendments, owners will, however, also have to report incidents targeting systems that are peripheral to the CII, including those from third-parties and entities in the supply chain, like in the case of the use of cloud computing.”
“Thank you, Chairman. I have just two clarifications, one for Minister of State Sun Xueling and one for Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua. For the pilot infant childminding services, can the Minister of State share more about which part of Singapore will the pilot be implemented? What are the fees that young parents can expect? Will the subsidy be the same as the current infant care for licensed centres? Also, how will the quality and safety standards be checked, especially if they are not done on centre-based? For Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua, the question is on the family coaches for ComLink+. I think it is an excellent idea to roll out this initiative. I would like to know more about the qualification, training and experience of the family coaches and how we are supporting them because we know that a lot of them deal with very complex issues for the families. How do we help them, especially if the caseload can be about 25 to 35 families for each family coach?”
“Chairman, it is encouraging to know that the Government is continuing to make significant efforts to promote inclusive employment, including the upcoming Workplace Fairness Legislation (WFL) to promote more employment opportunities for PwDs and the Enhanced Enabling Employment Credit (EEC) to increase the support level employers will get when hiring PwDs. In the Enabling Master Plan 2030, efforts have also been put to track employment rate of PwDs, with an aspirational target employing of resident PwDs at 40%. All these efforts are important and steps in the right direction to meet our inclusive employment goals as a fair and inclusive nation. Notwithstanding these commendable efforts, with the changing nature of work, it is also important to track more granular employment data so that we are aware of the effectiveness of various strategies and areas to expand resources in to keep the relevance and sustainability of PwD's employment. In this regard, I would like to ask MSF: one, what are the jobs that our PwDs are being employed in; two, whether the number of employers has been steadily increasing over the years and which sectors are these employers from; three, if there are some dominant sectors that our PwDs are employed in, are they facing market changes that will make the job roles of our PwDs more vulnerable? Lastly, whether the income level of the PwDs will enable them to sustain independent living till retirement age like the rest of the workforce, especially when their parents are ageing and finding more difficulties in caring for them?”
“Chairman, I appreciate the efforts of MSF in launching innovative new models like the Enabling Service Hub in August last year, which offer closer community support for persons with disabilities and their caregivers, closer to their home and bring partnership into the community to conduct more social activities and learning courses for persons with disabilities, befriending and caregiving support services, as well as outreach and reference to services that they need. More of such hubs all around Singapore will certainly ease the access of such services for persons with disabilities and their caregivers and enable them to live and participate in the community more actively. Nonetheless, as we expand and build on such infrastructure, we must also make continuous efforts to involve the community, be it corporate, community, or grassroots partners, in different ways to provide different opportunities. With more involvement of the community, more coordination will also be needed to optimise each partner's contribution. In this aspect, I would like to ask MSF the following two questions. One, how will you better coordinate and spread out corporate and community partners to ensure adequate resources across various parts of Singapore? And two, how can we be more intentional in attracting young corporate executives to be on the boards of social service agencies to inject new ideas and activism to solve dynamic social issues? Whole-of-society Approach”
“Mr Chairman, as part of the Forward SG report, MSF put forth plans to uplift our lower-income families toward sustained progress by enhancing support through ComLink+ package, where families will be provided with dedicated family coaches, additional preschool subsidies, employment and home ownership support. In my Jalan Kayu (JK) Constituency, we started a JK Care Network to encourage companies and community partners in our neighbourhood to join hands in broadening support for our ComLink families. However, some partners have given feedback that there is a need for continuous and one-to-one family coaching to help some parents in ComLink families to better understand opportunities and priorities that can give their younger generation a better future. As such, I support the enhancements to provide closer family coaching in ComLink+ to facilitate ComLink families' decision-making and prioritisation of choices, thereby providing more social mobility for their children. I would like to ask MSF the following questions. One, what will be the family coaches-to-ComLink families ratio as the enhancements are rolled out? Two, how frequently can we expect the family coaches to be interacting with the ComLink families? Three, and lastly, what measures will be put in place to assess the effectiveness of family coaching within ComLink+ and how will the assessments help shape future enhancements to the programme? ComLink”
“Sir, the shortage of infant care places in the neighbourhood often poses significant stress on young parents, many of whom have to work full-time. During my Meet-the-People sessions, I often receive requests from parents to help in seeking infant care options nearest their homes. I am grateful to ECDA for their very prompt actions to help to match to vacancies as soon as possible. In cases where the young parents cannot wait, many of them share that they have resorted to informal childminding arrangements with family members or neighbours willing to help them in the caregiving. However, these informal arrangements do not qualify them for the same subsidies as formal infant care services do. As part of the Forward SG report, I understand the Government intends to introduce affordable, safe and reliable childminding services as an additional infant care option for families. I would like to ask MSF, how does it intend to formalise and subsidise such informal childminding arrangements and ensure that they meet quality and safety standards? How does MSF plan to pilot and scale such a programme to cover diverse family needs and geographical areas, ensuring that every family that needs such an arrangement can access the alternative infant care solutions? Reliable and Affordable Care”
“Chairman, as we work towards fostering a family-friendly Singapore, it is important to leverage a whole-of-society approach to nurture and strengthen our family support systems. One of the key themes in the Forward SG conversation and Budget 2024 is also about doing more to help support families through every stage of life. I know that the Family for Life movement led by MSF is yielding promising results in activating a supportive community environment for family bonding. I am also glad to know that the Family for Life at Community will be expanded to 24 towns nationwide by 2025. A holistic approach is indeed crucial to strengthen family resilience, especially in the early marriages stage, as statistics show that Singapore has the highest proportion of divorces occurring in the first five to 10 years of marriage. At the same time, we also need to be inclusive of different family structures, such as single-parent families, blended families and families with special needs. In this regard, I would like to ask how MSF will tailor the Family for Life initiative to also cater for the unique challenges of these different family structures.”
“For the Second Minister for Health, Minister Masagos; and two questions for Minister Ong. I am really very glad about the expansions of AACs. I wanted to ask, in the selection for the social service agency or the operator for the new AAC, will the Ministry or AIC put more considerations on existing agencies who are already operating existing AAC in the constituency? Because many times, they have already built very good relationships with the grassroots organisations and it is very important for local collaborations as more AACs emerge in the constituency. The two questions for Minister Ong are: firstly, on the MIC@Home going to become a mainstream care option. I think it is good news, but the move from its pilot state to mainstream is relatively faster than a lot of the healthcare pilots that we know about. I wanted to ask, how will the quality of care and patient safety be monitored and assured as this option begins to scale-up nationwide, especially if there are situations of disputes and responsibility of roles between the families and the care team? My final question is on the MediShield Life review that is upcoming and the premium that may be adjusted. One of the objectives for Healthier SG when it was first announced, was to blunt the healthcare cost increases that we are seeing internationally as well as in Singapore. But Healthier SG is in its very early phases; and I wanted to ask, how would the Council for the review take into consideration of the cost-blunting effect of Healthier SG in the review that is coming up?”
“Professional Development of GPs Chairman, in Singapore, about 80% of our primary care demand are met by our GP clinics. Many of our GP clinics are well located in most neighbourhoods. As such, their involvement in Healthier SG is an important collaboration in the population preventive health approach that we are increasingly taking. As we integrate social prescription and increase access of mental health treatment through our primary care providers in the Healthier SG and other national health strategies, our GPs will increasingly need help in expanding their capacities and capabilities, including receiving comprehensive and continuing training. This is especially so when areas such as social prescriptions and mental health treatment may be relatively newer areas that our GPs need to increase proficiency in. In this regard, I would like to ask MOH to provide updates on whether it has overall capacity building and professional development plans for our GPs, especially on: one, how are the GPs going to be supported to make time for continuing education training when time away from their clinics can mean opportunity costs from seeing patients in their clinics? Two, what are the support and resources provided to GPs on the latest research findings and protocols for the most effective treatment options in common chronic diseases, especially those where we are seeing increasing prevalence rates, such as hypertension? Lastly, for social prescription and mental health treatment, which usually require a multi-disciplinary treatment involvement, how will the GPs be equipped and how will the joint training be done for such multi-disciplinary teams to provide best health intervention to patients who need them? Progress of Healthier SG Implementation”
“Progress of Healthier SG Chairman, the Healthier SG initiative marks a pivotal shift in our national healthcare strategy towards preventive care with an emphasis on community-based health management. I would like to commend the efforts of MOH and all the partners that has brought about very encouraging enrolment figure – I think I last read, almost 700,000 residents have been enrolled. The successful implementation of this initiative relies heavily on the active collaboration between MOH, Primary Care Networks (PCN), polyclinics and private general practitioners (GPs). I would like to seek an update on what is the percentage of the enrolled residents that did so with GP clinics and what is the percentage that have enrolled with the polyclinics? 6.45 pm As more Singaporeans enrol on this initiative, besides focusing on reaching a wide base, I believe that there must be also healthcare indicators that can show that our population health is improving. I would like to further understand the development and efficacy of Healthier SG for enrolled residents such as: one, what are specific health outcomes that are being targeted for improvement under the personalised health plans for those who are enrolled? How has the personalised health plans been monitored for the enrolled residents? Secondly, in cases where enrolled residents are not meeting their health goals, what are the interventions or additional support that are given under Healthier SG to help them overcome their challenges? Lastly, does MOH expect that the prevalence rates for the most common chronic diseases faced by Singaporeans, including high cholesterol, high blood pressure and diabetes to ease or reverse as Healthier SG initiative rolls out?”
“I am glad to note from the World Health Organization (WHO) Global Health Expenditure database that the out-of-pocket expenditure in terms of percentage of the current health expenditure in Singapore has decreased between years 2000 and 2020 from 48.1% to 18.9%. It is also note-worthy that eight in 10 Singaporeans pay little or no cash for their subsidised hospital bills. However, given an ageing population where healthcare needs will increase and prolong, as well as advancements in medical treatment options that can be more costly, there is a concern on rising healthcare costs that may lead to higher out-of-pocket expenditures for Singaporeans in the years ahead. Another concern is the cost drivers in public hospitals that may increase operating expenditures, which can all indirectly increase bill sizes and out-of-pocket expenses for Singaporeans. I would like to ask MOH the following questions. One, what are the primary drivers behind the increase in healthcare costs in Singapore and how can they contribute to hospital bill sizes? Two, what cost control mechanisms are currently in place or will be in place in our public hospitals to mitigate cost increases and ensure healthcare remains affordable? Three, how does MOH intend to help public hospitals manage their costs and become more cost-efficient? Four, is the MediShield Life coverage expected to continue to be adequate to help Singaporeans defray a substantial portion of their bill sizes and keep out-of-pocket expenditures low? Lastly, how can MediShield Life adapt its coverage to reflect these rising costs while ensuring that the premiums remain financially sustainable for Singaporeans?”
“Chairman, the Mobile Inpatient Care at Home (MIC@Home) pilot seems to be demonstrating the potential of transforming patient care by providing a sustainable alternative to traditional hospital settings. I was encouraged to read from a Straits Times article in August 2023 that, as of June last year, around 1,000 patients have been admitted to the programme, staying for seven days on average, and resulting in an estimated savings of 7,000 bed days. By end of 2023, more than 2,000 patients would have experienced the virtual wards according to the article. In such an at-home care setting, family and community involvement seems crucial to maximise the benefits of patients’ recovery. This may involve training family members in basic care protocols and procedures to create a conducive and supportive home environment for the recovery of the patient. I would like to ask for an update on how MOH is intending to scale up MIC@Home, including extending the care model to more patient types in palliative care or even paediatrics. I believe that such scale-up can provide more options to patients and caregivers, especially for senior patients who may prefer to recover in the comfort of their own home. I would like to ask MOH what more can the community and individual families learn and do to make such a scale-up possible for more groups of patients, especially our senior patients for the years to come. Managing Healthcare Cost Increases MediShield Life has undergone several rounds of enhancement to ensure that Singaporeans can continue to afford paying for large hospital bills in times of catastrophic medical episodes and selected costly outpatient treatments, such as dialysis and chemotherapy for cancer.”
“Yes, I wanted to check if the Ministry will consider investing in the longitudinal studies to understand young Singaporean women's awareness, attitudes and considerations towards fertility health and childbirth.”
“Speaker, I thank the Minister for the reply. I am referring to the higher proportion of women who are giving birth between the ages of 31 and 35. From my conversations with some of these women, they are not aware that their fertility health get challenged during that period and sometimes there can be complications. So, I wanted to ask one supplementary question. Given our low total fertility rate (TFR), will the Ministry consider investing in more longitudinal research and studies on young Singaporean women's awareness, attitudes and considerations towards fertility health and childbirth, so that we can proactively find interventions along the way to mitigate the declining TFR?”
“Speaker, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the very comprehensive reply. My one supplementary question is that as Singapore strengthens our move towards more proactive and deliberate efforts to mitigate climate change and further our sustainability efforts, does the Ministry also have plans to further incentivise our local private sector companies to buy from all these sustainability labelled or certified products because some have given feedback that they are a bit more premium priced and add to their operating costs in an already increasing cost environment?”
“Seventy-two percent similarly think that it is not necessary to have children in a marriage, but most of them still would like to have children. Our young people are increasingly focusing on furthering their education and career advancement over marriage and parenthood. This aspiration and reality gap can contribute to continued implications on our demographic challenges. I would like to ask, given the importance of financial planning and fertility health in achieving family life goals, could the Government consider embedding financial education related to family planning and fertility health in our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), just like how career coaching is proliferated? 3.30 pm Creating Family-friendly Work Culture”
“Thank you, Chairman. On supporting marriage and parenthood, Mr Chairman, several hon Members of this House have already mentioned that in 2022, our TFR hit another low of 1.04 and there was also a 4% reduction in citizen births from the previous year. Although we have seen an encouraging increase in citizen marriages over the past two years, the annual average number of marriages and births over the last five years remains lower than that of the preceding five years. With these demographic challenges that we are facing as a nation, despite increasing Government financial incentives for young couples to start a family and have more children, I would like to ask: one, beyond the financial support, what other proactive and innovative approaches is the Government exploring to address the factors contributing to the decline in TFR? I suggested setting up a social ecosystem of mentoring on family planning and financial management to alleviate the financial anxieties of setting up families in my Budget speech. I would like to ask if this is something that the Government can facilitate in more local communities. Second question, considering the rising median age of first marriages and first-time citizen mothers, what additional measures can be taken to increase awareness of potential fertility challenges and encourage earlier family formation? Coaching Young People in Life Choices Mr Chairman, in a recent pre-conference poll done by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) for the Singapore Perspective Conference 2024, seven in 10 of young Singaporeans aged between 21 and 34 believe that it is not necessary to get married, but most still want to do so.”