Sun Xueling
Singapore
“We are deploying electric vehicle (EV) chargers in tandem with growing demand, within the constraints of space and electricity. As EV technology is continuously improving, we are also mindful not to overbuild as chargers can become obsolete quickly.”
“I thank Member Dr Choo Pei Ling for raising feedback from her Tengah residents. Currently, two multi-storey car parks in Tengah have EV chargers, and LTA subsidiary, EV-Electric (EVe) Charging Pte Ltd, is in the process of deploying EV chargers in another eight multi-storey car parks in Tengah.”
“The Government targets to deploy 60,000 electric vehicle (EV) charging points by 2030, which comprise 40,000 in public car parks, and 20,000 in private premises. As of March 2026, there are 30,500 EV charging points deployed in Singapore. We are on track to achieving our 2030 target in tandem with the growing demand for EVs.”
“In 2025, about 30% of Build-To-Order (BTO) blocks were completed earlier than their estimated completion dates at the point of flat booking. On average, these blocks were completed about two months earlier.”
“Yes, thank you. We agree with Dr Neo that it is important to bring together the wider ecosystem and we will consult all stakeholders. The Ministry of Transport's immediate focus is to drive the usage of drones more extensively, especially by the public sector and this is because we already have many potential use cases.”
“I thank the Member for her question. Earlier, I mentioned in my reply that the HDB notifies buyers at three junctures. This is to give buyers adequate time to plan. And that is why it is at the one year before, six months before and three months before.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,352 lines we hold for Sun Xueling, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 28.
“The details of the one-stop service will be worked out with Charities Unit later. Mr Yip also asked if groups that are organised in virtual spaces within chat groups and on the Internet will be addressed under the Societies Act and the conditions for their registrations. In the Societies Act, a society includes any club, company, partnership or association of 10 or more persons, whatever its nature or object, except for groups that are already governed by other Acts, such as companies under the Companies Act. Hence, groups that form in virtual spaces meet the technical definition of a society. That said, we have to take a practical approach: groups that are transient and informal do not fall under the ambit of the Societies Act. Mr Giam asked if the amended Automatic Route would deter legitimate groups from registering as a society. I would like to share that groups can, indeed, maintain themselves as virtual groups or informal groups. However, without a legal entity, these groups cannot do things, such as open a bank account in the name of their group or rent a property in the name of their group for their activities. And this will likely constrain their ability to attract members. Assoc Prof Razwana suggested that more resources and information, such as providing mandatory training on rules, countering threats and vulnerabilities, be given to societies which are at higher risks of being exploited by bad actors. She also mentioned the formation of online groups on various digital platforms and asked for support to guide them on their compliance obligations. The relevant domain agencies would provide such information.”
“Once designated, the entity will be subject to countermeasures, such as being required to disclose political donations and foreign affiliations. If there is a higher risk of foreign interference, the Government can also issue stepped-up countermeasures to impose stricter safeguards, such as disallowing foreign political donations, and foreigners from holding leadership positions. On religious organisations, we amended the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act in 2019, to require religious groups to disclose foreign donations and affiliations and to be subject to local leadership requirements. We can also impose additional safeguards on religious groups if there is a greater threat of foreign influence. Assoc Prof Razwana suggested that "selected societies" be required to provide more details on their governing body at the point of registration. I would like to reassure her that the Registrar can and will ask for more information, over and above what societies submit in the application forms, if the Registrar assesses a need to. Dr Syed Harun recognised that the Bill strikes a balance between public safety and interests, while allowing the space for expression in the local communities. He also urged MHA to be discerning when making decisions on dissolving societies that have a long track record. I would like to reassure Dr Syed Harun that we will continue to strive to maintain a good balance in considering whether to dissolve a society. Mr Yip asked about the one-stop service portal for charities. The intent of the portal is that it would provide a seamless integration between the charities unit and Registry of Societies systems. Ideally, charities which are also societies will go to one system for their Annual Returns submission.”
“The grounds for rejection for those via the Normal Route are as stated in sections 4(2) and 4(3) of the Societies Act. For example, an application may be rejected if the society was likely to be used for unlawful purposes, or for purposes prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order in Singapore, or that it would be contrary to national security or interest for the society to be registered. The Registrar considers many factors in assessing whether an application should be rejected based on the grounds in the Societies Act and in the Bill. Let me give some examples. Applications for registration may be refused where doing so is necessary to: prevent social segregation or religious and racial disharmony; safeguard Singapore against foreign interference; or protect public safety or Singapore’s security in general. Applications to amend rules may be rejected if the rules would lead to a breach of the Societies Act or the Societies Regulations. For example, section 12 of the Societies Act prohibits a person from acting as an officer of a society if he has been declared unfit to hold office. If the amended rules would have the effect of permitting a disqualified person to act as an officer, the Registrar may reject the application. Ms Ng and Mr Yip asked how this Bill will combat foreign interference through registered societies. We already have laws to protect against foreign interference through entities in Singapore, including registered societies and companies. In particular, FICA, which was passed in Parliament in 2021, will allow the Government to designate an entity, such as a registered society, as a politically significant person.”
“This is provided for in the amendments under clause 8 of the Bill, which listed the grounds of which the application to change name and rules will be rejected. Societies can also refer to the "Frequently Asked Questions" on the Registry of Societies' website for guidelines on amendments of rules and names. Assoc Prof Razwana Begum noted that the Bill would provide clarity on the reasons why applications to change names and rules are rejected. I wish to clarify that the amendments in clause 8 of the Bill list the grounds on which the Registrar can reject applications to change names or rules. It does not legally require the Registrar to provide reasons for rejecting the applications to change names or rules. Having said that, ROS will engage the applicants and advise, where appropriate, as long as it does not involve the disclosure of sensitive information. We had several questions on the grounds of rejection. Mr Giam asked how many applications to form societies were rejected in the past five years and what were the grounds for their rejection. On the grounds of rejecting an application for registration, Ms Nadia Samdin asked when the Registrar would consider an application to be prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order. Ms Nadia also asked when the Registrar would refuse an application to amend the rules of a society on the grounds that it is contrary to national interests or security, prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order, or contrary to the Societies Act. Mr Murali also asked questions in a similar vein on how the powers based on these grounds would be exercised. In the past five years, 53 applications were rejected. This is 3.7% of all applications received during this period.”
“This practice is in accordance with section 29(1)(b) of the Interpretation Act, which provides that a power to grant approval also includes the power to impose reasonable conditions. The amendment to the Societies Act simply makes this power explicit. The Registrar’s discretion is not unfettered; his decisions must still have a nexus to Singapore’s security, public order or morality. Hence, even with the amendments, the Registrar’s powers must still be exercised in line with Article 14 of the Constitution. To answer Mr Yip Hong Weng’s question on the recourse if there are disagreements on the rules being inserted, applicants can write to the Registry of Societies and we will consider each case on a case-by-case basis. If the Registrar refuses to approve their application due to their refusal to insert the rules, then the applicants can also appeal to the Minister within 30 days under section 4(4) of the Societies Act. Mr Giam asked why societies discussing issues related to civil or political rights or the governance of Singapore society remain listed in the Schedule. These are sensitive issues and need to be appropriately handled by the society in order for it not to become a socially divisive one. In some cases, they could also be a channel for foreign influence into sensitive domestic affairs. Hence, societies that cover these areas should apply via the Normal Route. I would like to highlight that about 50% of applications go through the Normal Route – 50% of all applications to register a society go through the Normal Route – and the vast majority are approved. Mr Yip asked for clarity on the list of considerations for amendments of rule and name.”
“However, ROS reviewed the application and found that its constitution listed martial arts as an activity. ROS then moved it to the Normal Route instead. Mr Murali Pillai highlighted the change from "shall" to "may" in section 4(1) of the Societies Act. Currently, section 4 of the Societies Act provides that the Registrar shall register a specified society upon application and payment of the prescribed fee unless one of the grounds for refusal in section 4 applies. Currently, the prescribed fee is paid only upon approval of application. Hence, upon payment of the fees, the Registrar must – shall – register the society. We are amending the Societies Act to state that the prescribed fee is be paid upon application, instead of upon approval. This means that, after the payment of fees, the Registrar might still refuse to register the society based on one of the grounds in section 4. Therefore, it is inaccurate to mandate that the Registrar must register the society upon payment of the prescribed fee. To be clear, if none of the grounds for refusal in section 4 is made out, the Registrar will not refuse to register the society. Hence, the amendment remains aligned with Article 14 of the Constitution and the purpose of section 4, as stated by then Senior Minister of State Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee in 2004. Mr Murali also asked about the ambit of the Registrar’s powers to mandate the inclusion or exclusion of provisions of the constitution of a specified society before registration. He further asked how this power will be exercised in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution. To clarify, as mentioned in my opening speech, this is not a new power.”
“We will still need to allow the Registrar to ask questions as we need to be able to assess whether the application does, indeed, fall outside the categories in the Schedule. Sometimes, the Registrar may not be able to assess based purely on the details submitted in the application. Mr Giam suggested that questionnaires be built into the application form to help identify societies whether they should be submitted via the Normal or Automatic Route. This is already the process today. Applicants have to answer a set of questions as part of the application process. Based on their replies, the system will route to either the Automatic or the Normal Route. However, as mentioned, there could be instances where the Registrar may need to make enquiries to ascertain whether the declarations were done correctly, for example, when the objectives in their draft constitution indicate a function covered in the Schedule, but yet their declaration indicated otherwise. In such a situation, the amendments would allow the Registrar to ask questions. Mr Giam asked for examples of applications that were submitted via the Automatic Route but should have been submitted via the Normal Route. This happens once in a while. Applicants make incorrect declarations, though without ill-intent, that result in their applications sent via the wrong route. Let me give an actual example, but with the name redacted. Currently, pugilistic or martial arts fall within the categories in the Schedule. Hence, applications for societies that deal with pugilistic or martial arts have to be submitted via the Normal Route. An applicant clicked "no" on the question pertaining to whether it is a martial arts group, thinking that it is a sports group.”
“In assessing statutory appeals, the Minister will have to weigh the views of the applicants against the Registrar's. The grounds of acceding to or rejecting the appeal are fact-specific. Let me repeat that: the grounds of acceding to or rejecting the appeal are fact-specific. Mr Gerald Giam asked why we need to amend the Automatic Route. MHA reviews its laws and regulations regularly to ensure that they remain up-to-date. These amendments are part of our regular review. I would like to reiterate that there will still be two routes to register a society and, even with amendments to the Automatic Route, MHA expects the majority of the applications via the Automatic Route to be approved without having to make further inquiries. I can also assure this House that genuine applications under the Automatic Route will not face a longer waiting period for approvals than under the current regime. Mr Giam asked if there were any applications that were approved via the Automatic Route that should not have been approved because they posed a threat. There were no applications that were automatically approved that we thought should not have been approved. However, we have come across three applications that were submitted via the Automatic Route that triggered some concerns, as the applicants had some antecedents. For operational reasons, we seek Members’ understanding that we are not able to share more about these three applications and, for their own reasons which we do not know, the applicants did not pursue their applications. Mr Giam also asked, instead of amending the Automatic Route, why not expand the Schedule to include more categories?”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Members who spoke in support of the Bill. Please allow me to address their questions. Ms Ng Ling Ling asked how the Registrar of Societies would assess whether an application, submitted via the Automatic Route, would pose risks to national security or public order, or be prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order in Singapore. This assessment looks at many factors, such as the background of the applicants, the proposed activities of the society and the nature of their foreign affiliations. Where needed, MHA will consult other agencies. Ms Ng asked whether non-specified societies will be directed to modify their constitutions if they are identified as engaging in causes that seem to discuss or promote issues aligned with a specific policy objective. The answer is yes, and the current law already allows us to do it. Currently, under section 11A(2) of the Societies Act, the Registrar already has powers to direct a non-specified society to amend its constitution, if it is in the Registrar’s opinion that the amendments are needed to safeguard national interest, or public peace, welfare or good order in Singapore. Ms Ng and Mr Yip spoke about the appeals for societies whose applications are rejected. Questions on how many appeals have been reviewed over the years by the Minister for specified and non-specified societies and on what grounds the appeals are granted by the Minister were asked. Currently, non-specified societies are automatically registered and cannot be rejected. All appeals received by the Minister are for specified societies rejected through the Normal Route. Over the past three years, we received four statutory appeals to the Minister.”
“First, we are proposing amendments to allow for electronic transmission of documents. These are in clauses 5, 6, 7, 9, 11 and 16 of the Bill. Second, currently, application fees are to be paid upon approval of applications before the society is registered. MHA intends to charge the fee upon submission of an application, as costs will have to be incurred to assess the application, regardless of whether the registration is approved. Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill give effect to this. Third, societies which are charities presently have to file their annual submissions to two separate authorities, the Registry of Societies and Charities Unit. To reduce the administrative burden on societies which are also charities, a one-stop service will be established which allows such societies to file their annual submissions only once. Clause 17 of the Bill introduces new sections to allow the Registrar to prescribe different forms for them. The details of the one-stop service will be worked out with Charities Unit later. Mr Speaker, the amendments that MHA has proposed aim to strengthen and modernise the regulatory framework governing societies. I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Instead of place of business, clause 2 of the Bill amends section 2 of the Societies Act to refer to "registered address" instead, defined as the address of the society that is kept and maintained with the Registrar. Consequential amendments will be made throughout the Societies Act. The next set of amendments are on the offences. The last review of the penalties in the Societies Act was done in 2004, 19 years ago. We are increasing the fine quantum for all the offences in the Societies Act to keep up with inflation and to ensure that the fine quantum continues to have a deterrent effect. In addition, we have updated the offences of providing false information to the Registrar. Currently, sections 10 and 29 of the Societies Act penalise the failure to provide information and the provision of false information to the Registrar. Clauses 7 and 14 of the Bill update these provisions to align with the language used in newer Acts, such as the Debt Collection Act. In particular, on the provision of false information to the Registrar, the fault element of the offender is presently not mentioned in sections 10 and 29. This means that even if a person provided false or inaccurate information by mistake, he would be in breach. MHA's view is that only those who intentionally, knowingly or recklessly provide false or inaccurate information should be liable. Clauses 7 and 14 of the Bill, therefore, amend the fault element of these offences accordingly. Clause 15 of the Bill introduces a new section 30A to allow the Registrar to compound offences in the Societies Act as an alternative to charging offenders in Court. The Bill also includes amendments to facilitate the administration and regulation of societies.”
“To provide clarity to societies, clause 8 of the Bill amends section 11 to include the grounds on which the Registrar may refuse to approve a change of name or an amendment of provisions in the societies’ constitution. For example, the Registrar can refuse to approve a change in name if the new name is likely to mislead members of the public as to the true character or purpose of the society. The Registrar can refuse to approve a change in the constitution if it would be contrary to Singapore’s national interest or prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order in Singapore. For avoidance of doubt, the Registrar will not be limited to the grounds stated in the Act. Under section 12(1)(b) of the Societies Act, the Minister can currently declare a person to be unfit to be an officer of a society by reason of any conviction for a criminal offence, for example, where the officer is convicted for dishonesty, such as fraud, scam, cheating or misuse of monies, as well as offences under the Societies Act. An "officer" here refers to committee members and does not include members of the society. For ease of administration, clause 10 of the Bill amends section 12(1)(b) of the Societies Act to allow the Registrar, instead of the Minister, to declare a person as unfit to be an officer of a society. The Minister will be the appellate authority. A person who is declared to be unfit by the Registrar can apply to the Minister for permission to act as an officer of a society. Currently, section 2 of the Societies Act defines the place of business of a registered society as "the place where the records and books of account of a society is kept". This is too narrow in today’s context where virtual offices and storage of documents on the cloud are common.”
“This practice is in accordance with section 29(1)(b) of the Interpretation Act, which provides that a power to grant a licence, permit, approval or exemption, also includes the power to impose reasonable conditions. For instance, to preserve Singapore’s multi-religious and multiracial harmony, the Registrar may request an applicant of a society that is involved in issues of race and religion to insert a clause that the society "shall not engage in any activities that may undermine racial or religious harmony in Singapore", as a condition for registration. Clause 3 of the Bill inserts a new section 4(3A) to make it explicit that the Registrar has powers to require the rules of specified societies to be amended as a condition for registration. The Registrar can refuse to register the society if the society does not comply. Section 4(3A) does not list the grounds for which the Registrar will direct a specified society to amend its rules. However, this does not mean that the Registrar can require a society to include unreasonable rules into its Constitution, failing which the Registrar will reject an application. The Registrar’s decisions must still have a nexus to the purpose of the Societies Act, which is to ensure that groups which may be used for unlawful purposes, or poses a threat to public order, welfare or good order in Singapore or which will be contrary to our national interests will not be established in Singapore. Mr Speaker, I will now touch on amendments affecting registered societies. Currently, under section 11 of the Societies Act, societies need to seek the Registrar’s approval to change their name or amend the rules in their constitution. The Societies Act is silent on the grounds on which the Registrar can refuse to approve such applications.”
“Let me give Members a hypothetical example of the current gaps and how these amendments will address the gaps. Suppose a group of individuals, with antecedents of concern, wished to set up a society to advocate for the interest of a racial group. However, they know that if they were to set up a society promoting the interests of a particular race, they would have to do so via the Normal Route, where the Registrar would be able to scrutinise their application, such as asking questions to clarify the objectives of the society and queries on their leadership composition. To avoid being questioned, this group tries to set up a society with an innocuous aim, such as a history interest group. Such an application could then be submitted via the Automatic Route, which currently, will be approved immediately. The proposed amendments in the Bill would allow the Registrar to make inquiries on all applications submitted, for both Automatic and Normal Routes. Clause 4 of the Bill adds a new section to allow appeals to the Minister for Home Affairs for rejected applications via the Automatic Route, similar to the existing appeal mechanism for applications via the Normal Route. If an appeal is rejected by the Minister, the applicants can launch a judicial review, no different from today. We expect the majority of applications for registration of societies to still go through the Automatic Route without the need for any clarifications. Our next set of amendments seeks to clarify the Registrar’s powers for applications submitted via the Normal Route. Currently, under the Normal Route, the Registrar may request an applicant to insert clauses into their constitution, prior to allowing the registration of the society.”
“It is meant for societies involved in issues which are less sensitive. For these applications, the Societies Act currently states that the Registrar shall, without making any further inquiry, register these societies on the date the Registrar receives the application, so long as the formal requirements for registration are met. In the last five years, we received about 1,400 applications. About half of them were submitted via the Automatic Route. This differentiated approach in processing applications has allowed MHA to focus its attention on assessing the more sensitive applications. That said, there are two gaps. First, there were instances when the Registrar needed information to ascertain whether applications under the Automatic Route indeed did not fall within the sensitive categories in the Schedule of the Societies Act. However, the current law does not allow the Registrar to seek clarifications of such applications. Second, even if an application does not fall within the sensitive categories in the Schedule, it could still be of concern. However, the Registrar currently has no authority to reject such applications. Clause 4 of the Bill, therefore, amends section 4A of the Societies Act to: remove the obligation on the Registrar to register a society under the Automatic Route without making an inquiry. This will allow the Registrar to make inquiries of applications submitted via the Automatic Route; and empower the Registrar to reject an application submitted via the Automatic Route, if the Registrar is satisfied that the society, if registered: (a) is likely to be used for unlawful purposes or for purposes prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order in Singapore; or (b) would be contrary to Singapore’s national security or interest.”
“Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". The Societies Act governs the registration of societies. It ensures that groups that may be used for unlawful purposes, pose a threat to safety and security, or whose activities are contrary to our national interests, are not allowed to establish themselves in Singapore. To ensure that the Societies Act remains relevant and can continue to meet its intent, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has proposed a set of amendments to: (a) strengthen the regulation of societies to safeguard national interests and security; and (b) provide better clarity to the public on the registration requirements. We had conducted engagement sessions with selected societies in 2022 and 2023, as well as a public consultation exercise in 2022 via the REACH platform. The feedback was supportive of the proposed amendments. Let me now go through the provisions of the Bill. First, we aim to strengthen the registration process. Currently, applications to register societies can be processed via two routes. The Normal Route is for applications that fall within the categories specified in the Schedule of the Societies Act. These societies are involved in issues which are more sensitive, such as politics, religion, race, language and nationality. Such applications go through vetting and assessment by the Registrar of Societies, which may involve several rounds of clarifications with the applicant. The Registrar has the authority to reject applications submitted via the Normal Route. We also have the Automatic Route. This was introduced in 2004, for applications that do not fall within the categories specified in the Schedule of the Societies Act.”
“These queries relate to the recent anti-money laundering operations conducted by the Police and Singapore's anti-money laundering framework. Mr Speaker, with your permission, the Ministry of Home Affairs, together with various other Ministries, will respond to the queries comprehensively in the Ministerial Statement that will be delivered later today.”
“Mr Speaker, may I seek your permission to take Question Nos 1 to 12 together?”
“At the broader level, we must strive to nurture a society that embraces family and is family-friendly. Every one of us has a part to play in building a Singapore Made for Families, where families are valued and supported. With that, Sir, I beg to move. 3.52 pm”
“The primary role of the Approved Person is to oversee the withdrawal of CDA funds in respect of an Approved Institution. Approved Persons must be able to fulfil their roles and responsibilities specified in the Child Development Co-Savings Regulations as well as MSF's Terms and Conditions for Approved Persons and Approved Institutions. For those who have not been proper in carrying out their role as an Approved Person, MSF will suspend their approval. The suspension safeguards the child's CDA funds but does not mean that the relevant Approved Institution has to cease service provision for the child. For instance, a preschool can continue its delivery of services as long as it remains licensed by ECDA. In the past three years, one Approved Person has been suspended due to their failure to keep proper records. The amendments to section 7 provide for a simplified process wherein revocation of the approval granted to these Approved Persons does not need to be approved by the Minister. This would be applied in specific situations that can be determined objectively, such as where the Approved Institution is no longer able to provide services because it has ceased operations. This serves to improve operational efficiency. I hope these clarification address Assoc Prof Razwana Begum's questions. Sir, let me now conclude. The amendments being made to the Child Development Co-Savings Act via this Bill is a clear signal of the Government's continued commitment to increase our support for parents in managing their work and family commitments. We will continue to do our best to provide such assurance to Singaporeans who are planning to embark on their parenthood journey. At the same time, we are fully aware that schemes and subsidies alone are insufficient.”
“Currently, single unwed parents requiring support with their basic living expenses can approach our Social Service Offices (SSOs). Our SSOs will assess their households' needs and circumstances and provide ComCare financial assistance if they meet the criteria. Our SSOs may also refer them to other Government agencies and community partners for further support. Family Service Centres also work with single unwed parents and their children to address their social and emotional needs, not forgetting that there are bottom-up initiatives such as the Northeast Community Development Council's "North East Growth Fund", which provide subsidies for formula milk and diapers to young children up to six years old so as to support new mothers. Let me now turn to issues relating to implementation and governance. Mr Yip Hon Weng and Dr Wan Rizal have raised concerns about potential misuse of parental leave. These are valid concerns as the annual commitment for the enhancements to Government-Paid Paternity Leave and Government-Paid Paternity Benefit amounts to about $57 million. MSF has measures in place to verify the authenticity of parental leave claims. Claim information that cannot be validated against Government data will be verified by our processing officers against supporting documents. In addition, disbursed claims will be selectively reviewed to detect erroneous payments to employers, employees and self-employed persons. If any erroneous payment is identified and verified to have taken place, the CDCA grants the Government powers to recover such monies from employers, employees and self-employed persons, as the case may be. We will undertake the recovery of such monies in a timely manner. Assoc Prof Razwana Begum asked several questions regarding Approved Persons.”
“The Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) has also started the Inclusive Support Preschool pilot to integrate early childhood and early intervention support for children with developmental needs within a preschool setting to provide a more inclusive learning experience and reduce the need for caregivers and children to shuttle between preschools and Early Intervention (EI) centres. We continue to improve access to knowledge and skills for parents with special needs children to carry out their caregiving duties and connect them with support networks. For example, ECDA launched a Parents' Guide last year to provide parents with information on ways to access EI services, support available to facilitate the child's transition from the preschool years to school-age provisions, as well as self-care strategies and resources. SG Enable has also worked with CaringSG, a caregiver-led organisation, to launch the Step One programme in July 2023. Mr Louis Ng asked for the equalisation of benefits to single unwed parents, starting with the extension of the cash component of the Baby Bonus scheme. I thank Mr Louis Ng for his suggestion. Many of the existing benefits are already equalised. These include subsidies for education, healthcare, infant care and childcare, the foreign domestic worker levy concession as well as CDA benefits. Rather than see the Baby Bonus cash gift as discriminatory to single unwed parents, it should be seen as a separate benefit to specifically promote parenthood within marriage. Hence, it is extended only to married parents. I fully empathise with the challenges faced by single unwed parents, in particular, those who are lower-income. I would like to assure Members that additional help is available for them.”
“We fully recognise that families caring for children with special needs face more financial challenges. Hence, the Government provides funding support and means-tested subsidies for children enrolled in early intervention programmes, Special Education (SPED) schools and Special Student Care Centres (SSCCs) to keep fees affordable for families with children with special needs. The Government is also working to expand places in early intervention services, SPED schools and SSCCs to ensure that children with special needs can access an education that develops their potential and equips them with knowledge and skills to participate meaningfully in society. Mr Ong Hua Han also asked if the income threshold of means-tested schemes such as the Assistive Technology Fund and Enabling Transport Subsidy can be revised to align with the median household per capita income. He suggested factoring in actual costs borne by families as part of the means-testing calculations. I thank the Member for his suggestions to help families with children who have special needs. MSF regularly reviews the income thresholds for such schemes to ensure that households receive the help that they need and we will take in his inputs when reviewing all these schemes. We recognise the critical role that caregivers play in caring for their loved ones with special needs and the importance of supporting families with persons with disabilities. Support for caregivers is indeed crucial to the children's well-being and development. Our support for caregivers is thus multifaceted. Early intervention centres provide caregiver engagement and training so that caregivers are equipped with the skills and knowledge to support their children at home.”
“They are also calibrated to balance between employees’ caregiving needs and employers’ business costs and manpower needs. Ms Usha Chandradas, Ms See Jinli Jean and Mr Desmond Choo have also called for more support for familial caregivers. Today’s Bill is on the CDCA and so we are discussing maternity and paternity leave and benefits. On the broader topic of support for caregivers for the elderly, I would like to assure Members that your feedback will be provided to the agencies looking into this topic. Beyond legislated leave provisions, it is important that we bring all stakeholders including employers to build a family-friendly work environment, so that caregivers can better manage both their work and caregiving responsibilities. On the Child Development Account (CDA), Ms Hany Soh has asked for greater flexibility on how funds can be utilised. I thank her for her feedback. The range of approved CDA usages is circumscribed to ensure that the funds are well-utilised to the benefit of the child. Nonetheless, we do regularly review the CDA scheme, together with our suite of marriage and parenthood policies. Over the years, we have enhanced the CDA scheme to provide more support to parents. For example, we have increased the Government co-matching contributions and also introduced the CDA First Step Grant. We have also expanded the areas where the CDA funds can be used and will continue to review how this can be further refined. Mr Ong Hua Han asked if the CDA co-matching or the CDA First Step Grant could be increased to better support children with disabilities to cope with the cost of living. These schemes are designed on a broad basis to support all parents in raising their children.”
“Take, for example, 1AND8 Singapore Pte Ltd, the company behind the Museum of Ice Cream. They have adopted the Tripartite Standard on Flexible Work Arrangements and allow their staff to fully telecommute, only returning to the office for physical meetings when required. The company also practises staggered hours and has part-time work available for their frontline Guest Specialist Experience positions. This approach has helped the company to boost work productivity while also enabling their employees to achieve a better work-life balance, leading to increased job satisfaction and higher morale. The positive outcomes are evident in their employees staying with them for extended periods, contributing to a lower turnover rate. Mr Mark Lee suggested establishing a comprehensive framework to recognise companies that support national-level initiatives such as the Tripartite Standard and progressive wages. Today, companies that adopt the Tripartite Standards will be profiled with the TS logo on MyCareersFuture job portal. This allows them to gain greater visibility in talent recruitment. Companies who pay their lower-wage workers progressive wages can also adopt the Progressive Wage Mark to profile themselves as responsible employers that support the uplifting of lower-wage workers. This can encourage consumers and service buyers to prioritise purchases from them. I will now address comments raised by Members about extending support to caregivers of other dependants. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if the different leave schemes could be amalgamated into a family care leave scheme to provide flexibility for parents and caregivers. Today, the leave schemes are differentiated to cater to the needs of different caregivers.”
“In the meantime, employers and employees may exercise flexibility in the parents’ utilisation of parental leave, such as by taking the leave in more than one period within their child’s first year, to minimise disruptions to business operations. Parents should also play their part by discussing their leave arrangements with their employers in advance, so that their employers can plan for the necessary covering arrangements and any additional resources that they may require. I also thank Mr Desmond Choo for sharing that the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) is ready to help our SMEs to develop policies that will better support parents. Another important strategy for companies to build agility in manpower needs is through the adoption of flexible workplace arrangements (FWAs). As mentioned by Ms Yeo Wan Ling, FWAs are more sustainable options and can benefit not just parents of young children but also other caregivers. When implemented well, FWAs can increase productivity, lower absenteeism and turnover, which in turn can help companies mitigate the effects of manpower constraints. Mr Melvin Yong suggested expanding the Child Development Co-Savings Act (CDCA) to provide incentives to employers who provide good FWAs to employees with children. We review the scope of the CDCA periodically to best serve the needs of parents. For FWAs however, they benefit not just parents but also caregivers of other familial members. As such, incentivising FWAs may take other forms other than through amending the CDCA. We share Members’ views on the importance of having FWAs. And the Government is on the lookout for positive examples of such companies to share with others at opportune times. We take heart that some companies have already walked this path and found success.”
“We will continue to build on these efforts and look for ways to further raise awareness and encourage parents to utilise their leave benefits. Dr Wan Rizal and Mr Don Wee asked if we will consider conducting a review to assess the impact of leave enhancements. As Mr Shawn Huang and Ms Usha Chandradas have said, it is a continuous process to review our policies to meet the evolving needs of parents and to make our society more family friendly. We will monitor the impact of our leave enhancements. Mr Mark Lee suggested revising the reimbursement schedule of the Government-Paid Maternity Leave and Paternity Leave to more frequent intervals to alleviate cash flow strain on SMEs. I would like to clarify that claims for reimbursement can be submitted for any part of the Government-Paid portion of the leave that has been taken and are not restricted to only after the last day of leave has been fully utilised. This applies to self-employed persons too. We recognise that some employers may have concerns with parents taking additional parental leave due to the nature of the work and challenge of finding covering arrangements. Mr Don Wee, Mr Mark Lee, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Dr Wan Rizal have highlighted that companies, especially SMEs who have fewer employees, may face operational challenges, and have suggested providing additional support for them. We have introduced the additional two weeks of Government-Paid Paternity Leave on a voluntary basis, so that employers have some time to make adjustments according to their manpower and operational needs. We intend to make this provision mandatory in due course and we will be conducting the necessary stakeholder consultations with tripartite partners before any such move.”
“To Mr Melvin Yong's suggestion to conduct a local study to examine companies that offer the best work-life balance, we will look at best practices today to identify what other companies can adopt. Assoc Prof Razwana Begum asked whether gig workers would benefit from the increase in Government-Paid Paternity Leave, and if not, what support is available to compensate them. Dr Wan Rizal stated that it is crucial to ensure gig workers can also benefit from these leave provisions. I would like to clarify that working parents who do not qualify for Government-paid leave schemes due to their employment arrangements, such as those on short-term contracts and gig workers, may be eligible for equivalent parenthood benefits in the form of Government-paid benefit schemes – that is the intent of Government-paid paternity benefit and Government-paid maternity benefit. These are cash benefits granted in lieu of the Government-paid portion of paid leave. Mr Don Wee suggested launching a public awareness campaign so that more parents are aware of their leave entitlements. Mr Desmond Choo also asked if the Government could broaden its work with the trade associations and chambers (TACs) and the Labour Movement to spread awareness of the enhanced Government-Paid Paternity Leave, especially among the self-employed. We thank Members for the suggestions. The Government will work closely with our tripartite partners to raise awareness of these benefits among employees and the self-employed, including gig workers, to encourage them to utilise their leave or benefits. For example, we have developed an infographic and produced a video on parental leave targeted at raising awareness among self-employed persons. The infographic was disseminated through our tripartite partners’ networks.”
“These movements look at strengthening family ties and resilience with the aim of increasing marriage stability as well as advocating the importance of shared parenting and household responsibilities between mothers and fathers. For example, the Centre for Fathering runs several campaigns throughout the year to reinforce and signal the importance of fathers’ active involvement in their child’s development. One of the campaigns is the Great Companies for Dads Awards, which engages and recognises companies that nurture a family-friendly work culture through their policies and initiatives. The attitudes and mindsets of supervisors and colleagues also make a big difference in helping fathers feel assured that they are not being discriminated for using their leave. We also hope to encourage self-employed persons to recognise the benefits of parental leave and how the Government tries to support them through the provision of Government-paid paternity benefits and Government-Paid Paternity and Maternity Leave. To Ms Hany Soh’s questions, we had indeed sought employers’ views and feedback on the leave enhancements through our consultations with the tripartite partners. We will continue working with our tripartite partners to encourage employers to foster family-friendly workplace cultures that will better support parents in managing their work and family responsibilities. We also encourage employers to be supportive and understanding when fathers take paternity leave. This would help employees be more motivated, like what Ms Yeo Wan Ling has shared. In the long run, progressive employers can stand to benefit from better talent attraction and retention.”
“This also helps with the computation of the actual amount of income lost to be reimbursed, which would not be possible to ascertain until the leave has been taken. Ms Hany Soh asked if flexibility could be exercised to allow expectant mothers to consume their maternity leave earlier in their final trimester. The primary intent of maternity leave is to provide mothers with time to recover from childbirth and to care for their newborns. We allow flexibility for mothers to start their maternity leave earlier, up to 28 days before delivery, but the bulk of their maternity leave should still be used for post-confinement. Expectant mothers who need to absent themselves from work earlier than 28 days before can tap on their sick leave or hospitalisation leave if they feel unwell, for example, if they suffer from severe nausea in the first trimester. Members such as Mr Yip Hon Weng, Dr Wan Rizal, Mr Don Wee and Assoc Prof Razwana Begum have asked about the Government’s efforts in encouraging fathers to utilise paternity leave as well as to normalise paternity leave and the importance of shared parental responsibilities. As Ms Yeo Wan Ling has stated, societal norms must be considered in the discussion of encouraging take-up of parental leave. It is important that the society adopts a mindset that embraces paternal involvement from the onset. To promote active fatherhood and the importance of shared parental responsibilities, we have been working with community partners such as the Families for Life Council and the Centre for Fathering on three key family movements in Singapore – the Families for Life, Dads for Life and Mums for Life movements.”
“On fostering, unlike adoption, fostering is a temporary care arrangement. Hence, foster parents are not eligible for Government-Paid Maternity or Paternity Leave. However, they are entitled to the same quantum of childcare leave and Unpaid Infant Care Leave as biological or adoptive parents. To better support adoptive and foster parents, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) and our community partners offer a range of services to meet their needs. All new foster parents are also trained by the Social Service Institute to care for foster children and can receive advice from more experienced foster parents through peer support networks. To defray the costs of caring for a foster child, MSF provides a monthly fostering allowance as well as childcare and medical subsidies for the foster children. Mr Desmond Choo expressed concern that some self-employed fathers may not qualify for GPPL if they take time off from work to support their wives in the pre-delivery phase. Let me clarify that in such cases, self-employed fathers remain eligible for the Government-Paid Paternity Leave as long as they have been carrying on their trade, business, profession or vocation for a continuous period of at least three months prior to the childbirth. They will not be disqualified simply because they took some time off work during this period. Ms See Jinli Jean has asked the Government to consider disbursing a self-employed person’s claim for lost income at the start of his or her leave period rather than after it has concluded. I wish to clarify that claims for leave or income lost are processed on a reimbursement basis to ensure that the leave has been taken as intended first before payment is made.”
“Based on the latest available survey data from 2020, 27% of private companies voluntarily provided additional paid childcare sick leave to employees. I would like to encourage private sector employers to consider providing childcare sick leave, which is available in the Public Sector on a per child basis. This can greatly alleviate parental stress from taking care of more children. To Ms Mariam Jaafar's suggestion, we will look at means, such as surveys, to gauge the take-up rate of UICL. Mr Louis Ng and Ms Mariam Jaafar asked for the equalisation of parental leave. Mr Melvin Yong asked the Ministry to consider providing adoptive and foster parents with more GPPL and UICL. Let me clarify that the current leave provisions are differentiated to meet the needs of the respective parents. Maternity leave is provided for mothers to recuperate physically from childbirth and care for and bond with their newborn. Hence, it is longer than paternity leave, which allows for fathers to care for their wives and bond with their newborn child. This is also why maternity leave is longer than adoption leave. Couples who wish to have the father spend more time with their newborns can have the father tap on Shared Parental Leave for up to four weeks from their wife's Government-Paid Maternity Leave or Adoption Leave. To Ms Hany Soh's query, we currently do not intend to change the Shared Parental Leave provision under this Bill. I would like to assure Members that the Government is on the same page as Members in wanting to encourage shared parenting. This is why beyond the minimal stipulations for maternity leave and paternity leave, any additional leave that the Government may consider in future will likely be of a shared nature, as per our move on shared parental leave in 2013.”
“The difficulty is not so much the cost to Government but rather the difficulties faced by employers and businesses who are impacted when leave is made compulsory. Already, based on the current set of proposals to increase Government-Paid Paternity Leave (GPPL) and Unpaid Infant Care Leave (UICL), Members in this House have highlighted concerns from employers that the increased leave provisions will adversely impact their manpower costs and operations. Mr Mark Lee in his speech yesterday said, "the introduction of GPPL and UICL enhancements may pose significant challenges for certain businesses, particularly small- and medium-sized enterprises with streamlined workforces where each employee's role is crucial to daily operations. Frontline service-oriented industries may need to recruit temporary personnel to cover for employees taking extended leaves." Mr Yip Hon Weng also shared in his speech yesterday, I quote, "appealing for more leave is not a viable solution. As a small, competitive nation, we must weigh these advancements against its potential effects on businesses, ensuring a balanced approach. We must vigilantly track the impact of these policies to discern whether they truly move the needle in the desired direction." These seemingly divergent views show that we need to strike a practical balance between supporting parents in their caregiving responsibilities and meeting employers' manpower needs. Our leave provisions need to take into account not only the roles of parents as caregivers but also the roles parents play in workplaces as employees. I understand that parents with more children will require more leave to take care of their children, should they fall ill. Currently, the Civil Service provides childcare sick leave on a per child basis.”
“Ms He Ting Ru also expressed concern on the gap in support for self-employed fathers and those without full-time employment. Ms See Jinli Jean further asked if the Government can consider providing paid paternity leave for the full four-week period of lost income to a self-employed father who stopped working for seven days a week for four weeks. The weekly index of six days takes reference from the Employment Act, which stipulates one rest day per week. This makes for a common base of reference to employees who receive Government-Paid Paternity Leave. For fathers who are not eligible for Government-Paid Paternity Leave, such as those on short-term contracts, they may receive the Government-Paid Paternity Benefit, which is a comparable cash benefit in lieu of the paternity leave. Mr Desmond Choo asked if we could allow parents to use Unpaid Infant Care Leave flexibly during the child's first two years and whether the number of leave days can be increased based on the number of children. I would like to clarify that parents can take 12 days of Unpaid Infant Care Leave flexibly as agreed with their employers during the initial 12-month period, following which they will be entitled to another 12 days of Unpaid Infant Care Leave in the second 12-month period in which the child remains under two years old. Employees may discuss their leave plans with their employers to see how best to meet their needs. Mr Louis Ng and Ms Mariam Jaafar asked if childcare leave can be increased. I think many of us as employees would like childcare leave to be increased. I fully empathise with the challenges Ms Mariam Jaafar had shared that her residents face.”
“Sir, I thank Members for their general support for the Bill. I am heartened that most of us agree that a collective, whole-of-society effort is needed to build a conducive environment that values and supports families on their parenthood journey. Let me now respond to the questions and suggestions that Members have raised. Mr Shawn Huang has shared in his speech that the use of paternity leave among the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries is increasing overall. We have observed a similar trend in Singapore. To Mr Desmond Choo and Assoc Prof Razwana Begum's question, since the introduction of Government-Paid Paternity Leave, take-up rates have increased from about 25% in 2013 to 53% in 2021. Assoc Prof Razwana Begum asked if there is research on the role taken by those fathers who utilise their paternity leave entitlements. From the Marriage and Parenthood Survey 2021, 97% of the married respondents agreed that paternity leave allowed fathers to play a bigger role in their newborn's life. Our research also showed that fathers found paternity leave useful to support their wives after birth and to settle into the role of fatherhood. To Ms He Ting Ru's question, we do survey the reasons why fathers do not fully consume their paternity leave. A key factor affecting fathers' utilisation of paternity leave is workplace support. This includes whether supervisors are adequately assuring that using paternity leave will not affect fathers' career prospects and that colleagues are willing to cover the fathers' duties in their absence. We will continue to explore ways to encourage employers to support all fathers to use their paternity leave such as by raising awareness of the benefits of providing a family-friendly workplace culture.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the debate be now adjourned." Resolved, "That the debate be now adjourned." – [Ms Sun Xueling].”
“I thank the Member for his question. As mentioned in my reply, persons whose bank accounts are frozen as a result of being recipients of suspected criminal proceeds can make an application to the Court to withdraw money for reasonable living or other legitimate expenses. Under section 35(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the account holder can submit an application to the Courts to access their funds for the payment of basic expenses, including any payment for foodstuff, rent, the discharge of a mortgage, medicine, medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums and public utility charges, amongst others. So, if the Member comes across residents who have difficulties in this regard, please ask the member to approach his Investigation Officer and please refer the member to this section of the Criminal Procedure Code so that the member may know how they can go about being able to still have access to funds which they need for their daily living expenses.”
“Mr Speaker, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) only freezes bank accounts when there is reason to suspect that the bank accounts are involved in illicit activities, including scams. The Member may refer to SPF's annual Scams and Cybercrimes brief published on the SPF's website for the number of bank accounts suspected to be involved in scams which the SPF has frozen each year. SPF does not track whether the frozen bank account is the owner's only bank account. Persons whose bank accounts are frozen can make an application to the Courts to withdraw money for reasonable living or other legitimate expenses. SPF does not collect information on the number of such applications to the Courts. SPF would unfreeze frozen bank accounts when they are subsequently found not to be involved in criminal activity and are no longer required for the purposes of investigation, trial or other Court proceedings. SPF does not track the time taken to unfreeze bank accounts after investigations have been completed.”
“I thank the Member for his questions. As I have said in my main response earlier, any operator's policy on the use of personal mobile devices at work should not hinder their staff from reporting from any wrongdoing in their centres. That said, there can be good reasons why educators may need their mobile devices. For instance, they may need to address an emergency that has happened at home and, as I have mentioned, they may need their personal mobile device to record any wrongdoing. So, in these incidents, in such situations, the operator should allow the educator to use their personal mobile device. So, while some operators have a policy on the use of personal mobile devices, it has to be a reasonable one. I have also mentioned in my main reply that there are various channels for anyone to report wrongdoing – members of the public, educators – there are hotlines, email addresses in which any member of the public and educator can report wrongdoing. And these channels do lead to ECDA. So, I would like to assure the Member that there are multiple channels of reporting for wrongdoing and that members of the public, educators, parents, they can do so and we would encourage them to do so if they have reasonable concerns about their children's safety.”
“But that said, I recognise the Member's concerns that even though some preschools may say that they have CCTVs but in actual fact, they may not and that is why we have mandated the CCTV installation by the 1 July. Please rest assured that because it is mandated, there will then be checks as well as monitoring on CCTV installation.”
“I thank the Member for his questions. First and foremost, as shared in the media release by ECDA on the 31 August with regards to the mandatory installation of CCTV cameras, ECDA had shared that parents' access to CCTV footages will only be granted for the purposes of providing an objective reference point to clarify feedback or to assist the investigation of serious incidents within the preschool premises and the request has to be on reasonable grounds. I understand where the Member is coming from, as to concerns about the privacy of children and that is why when viewing the footage, there is actually a requirement for the faces of the children and the staff who are not part of the investigation and inquiry into the specific instance whereby the parent has given feedback, for the faces of these children and educators to have their faces masked. So, this is a requirement. We will make it very clear to our operators and that is why we have issued guidelines to the operators. And the operators will also be sharing this with parents, so parents know what the boundaries around the viewing of footages with regards to the CCTV are. On the Member's second question, like I mentioned, the survey was done as a part of various engagements that ECDA did with the preschool operators last year on a variety of issues, of which CCTV installation was one of them. We will have to take the survey responses as they are. I am very sure the survey respondents know that they would have to provide the feedback to the best of their knowledge and that they really should not be providing dishonest inputs to an ECDA-conducted survey.”
“I would also like to share that currently there is a self-declaration form that potential educators have to fill up and this self-declaration form requires them to fill in whether or not they have mental health conditions and if they so declare that they have mental health conditions, then there will be need for a certification by a psychiatrist that they are able to work with young children. So, I think that is the balance that we have to put in place to ensure child safety while ensuring that we do not stigmatise mental health conditions in our society.”
“I thank the Member for her question. I fully understand where she is coming from and I also know that there many parents out there who are very concerned about the safety of their children. I had mentioned in my main reply that all educators must be certified by and registered with ECDA before they can be deployed in our preschools. ECDA verifies their professional qualifications. We also conduct background checks, reference checks. And, at the end of day, if there are educators who assessed to pose a risk to children's safety, then, they will not be allowed to enter the preschool sector as an educator. On the specific question of mandatory psychological screening, I would like to say that this is not done in other jurisdictions and this is not done for other professions. While we fully appreciate the importance placed on child safety and we are taking a firm stance on child safety by having those pre-employment checks that I mentioned earlier for criminal antecedents, whether they have bad references and they must be certified fit and appropriate to work for the sector. But I would caution against mandatory psychological screening. Because if we take a step back, I think we must also fully recognise that there are individuals – some say that there are many individuals – out there who may be struggling with mental health conditions and, actually, their mental health conditions can be well managed with proper advice, medication from their doctors. So, I do not think that we should exclude these individuals who have mental health conditions if those mental health conditions are well managed from entering the preschool sector.”
“I thank the Member for his question. I believe it was June last year. It was definitely last year, but I cannot remember which month. To the best of my recollection, it was in June last year. But I can come back and clarify that with the Member again, after I further check it. Like I mentioned, it was a status check. It was just to get a sense of where the preschools are. So, it was not a survey that each and every centre responded to. So, for instance, an Anchor Operator (AOP) might have many centres beneath them. So, the AOP from their headquarters responded as to whether they have CCTVs installed. But like what I mentioned earlier, because CCTV isolation was not mandatory at that point in time when we conducted the survey, we did not go down to track and monitor the results or the inputs that they provided through the survey.”
“On the Member's question as to how we can ensure that not only our children's safety is being taken care of but also that we have policies in place for our educators, that is precisely why we have mandated CCTV installation so that when there is feedback, that there are unfortunate incidents in the childcare centres, that we then have evidence to support investigations and be able to give a comprehensive response to parents should they have concerns about their child's safety in preschools.”
“I thank the Member for his questions. I would like to reiterate that in my main response, I had talked about the multi-layered safeguards that we have in place, that we have built up over the years in order to ensure child safety. I have with me here three sets of documents that govern early childhood development as well as the various policies that are in place to protect our children. This is the ECDC Act that I mentioned, 65 pages. We have the regulations, 66 pages. We have a Code of Practice; this is in its second edition, 75 pages. All these are policies which we constantly review, which we constantly engage industry and operators on. It is not for a lack of policies. We can have all the policies under the sun, in the world. But what is important is how well it is being executed on the ground. So, I fully recognise and understand where the Member is coming from. We are all on the same page. We want to protect our children as best as possible and we believe that the best way to do this is, to have multi-layered safeguards. Therefore, ECDA will look at these policies, rely on these levers, to make sure that operators, centres, educators are doing what they should do to ensure child safety. At the same time, operators need to know and truly breathe child safety in their policies and SOPs. Centre leaders and educators have to take their responsibilities seriously.”
“I thank the Member for his concerns on the well-being of our preschool educators. As I have mentioned in my main reply, there are different levels in which we are trying to handle this issue. First and foremost, we must, at the centre level, make sure that our educators have an outlet, have a channel, to be able to share with their centre leaders their concerns with their work, commitments and responsibilities and if there are any difficulties that they may have. That is why in my main reply, I have said that operators must do their part and take the lead in supporting the well-being of their educators. At the same time, we are not leaving it as that. ECDA has launched a good practices guide to guide our operators in implementing best workplace and human resources practices to foster a supportive work environment. And ECDA is also working with HPB and the Workplace Safety and Health Council to offer programmes to operators and educators to support their overall well-being. But over and above what ECDA can do and should do, over and above what operators have to do for their educators, I also hope to reach out to parents that in our engagements with preschool educators, to trust that they are doing their best for our children, to work with them closely to ensure that our children are thriving and growing up in a warm, nurturing environment. Let us all remember that teachers who are well cared for can better care for our children.”
“I thank the Member for his questions. ECDA has been working very hard at trying to encourage more well-meaning individuals, dedicated individuals, to join the preschool sector. And as I have mentioned in my main response, we have raised salaries, we are trying to improve work conditions. All these would have to be done in tandem with the support of parents. Because when we reduce childcare service provision hours, cutting back from working on Saturdays, for instance, we also need the agreement and cooperation from parents. So, in answer to the Member's question, ECDA is closely monitoring the state of our manpower, women power of the childcare industry to ensure that our early childhood educators are appropriately remenerated, that there is a skills ladder, that they have a work-life balance. And this is continuous work-in-progress. We are closely monitoring the status of the childcare sector.”
“There are also directions for the operator whereby they have to assemble a team of non-affiliated members and provide an independent review, with findings and recommendations as to how they can do better to ensure that these incidents do not happen in their centres again. So, we need to look at, holistically, all the penalties and all the actions that ECDA has taken towards the operator; and also, there is obviously the Courts and the Police who are separately investigating the educator.”
“I thank the Member for her questions. As I have mentioned in my main reply, the penalties that have been imposed on the operator include a financial penalty of $5,000 and this is the maximum allowed under the current framework. I have also shared that ECDA, arising from this case, will be reviewing the framework to see whether the financial penalty is sufficient and if need be, we will be looking to raise this financial penalty. This operator has also had its Centre's licence reduced to six months. This is a very important, serious penalty because it can affect the impressions that parents have towards the preschool. Do they still want to continue sending their child to a preschool whereby their licence tenure is only six months? At the same time, this operator is a Partner Operator (POP) Scheme operator. And to receive POP funding, they would have to meet various key performance indicators (KPIs). And one of them is their Centre's licence and their licensing tenure will also be a key factor when ECDA looks at funding for the operator. At the same time, as the Member has mentioned, there are specific actions towards the individuals who have now been charged for ill treatment of children. ECDA has barred one of the educators from ever working in the childcare sector. This individual is now being charged in Court for a criminal offence under the Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA) for ill treatment of children. So, we have to look at it as a whole. There are different levels of penalties, financial penalties.”