Valerie Lee
Singapore
“I would gladly lobby for this vision with Sharael, especially since much of the infrastructure sits within Changi. Mr Deputy Speaker, Singapore's story has always been one of reinvention. Our pioneers built a trusted port. Another generation built one of the world's finest airports.”
“I have two supplementary questions, one for MCCY. With fewer Singaporeans speaking dialects, the rich heritage tied to these dialects risk being lost. What steps is MCCY taking to ensure that Chinese-dialect cultures are being systematically documented, preserved and transmitted, particularly to younger Singaporeans?”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have two supplementary questions. Beyond recycling rates, can the Ministry consider complementary indicators and targets such as waste reduction, material circularity or recycling contamination rates to better measure progress towards a circular economy?”
“Thank you, Speaker and the Minister of State. First, I would like to thank LTA for partnering closely with me as I represent concerns and frustrations of residents in Pasir Ris and Changi, particularly on the ground where the impact of increased industrial and aviation activities is most keenly felt. I have one supplementary question.”
“Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Minister of State. I have two supplementary questions. For successful deployment of AI in power generation, it will require engineers with both energy and data analytics expertise.”
“In conclusion, I have come to realised that good transport policies, like strengthening connectivity, improving safety and minimising disruptions, are in a very practical way, supporting the sandwiched generation and those around them, and this is what I have set out to do from the very beginning. Traffic Management”
The complete record
Every one of 69 lines we hold for Valerie Lee, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 2.
“They clarify the role of Sport Singapore, strengthen governance and recognise a wider range of sporting activities, while continuing to support both high performance sport and mass participation. I will speak on three areas: first, the amended definition of sports, second, the expanded role of SportSG; and third, the formal recognition of the Singapore National Paralympic Council, followed by some clarifications for the Ministry. On the expanded definition of sports. This Bill updates the statutory definition of sport to reflect how participation and competition have evolved, by including mind sports and e-sports. Mind sports, such as chess and bridge are internationally governed with their international federations recognised by the International Olympic Committee. These disciplines have also featured as medal events in major multi-sport competitions, including the Asian Games. E-sports have similarly developed into structured and regulated competitive activities. They were included as official medal events at the 2022 Asian Games in Hangzhou and most recently at the 2025 SEA Games. At the elite level, competitors in mind sports and e-sports undergo systematic training, compete under sustained pressure and commit years to preparation and performance. These characteristics are consistent with what we already recognise in high performance sport. Mr Speaker, the expanded definition should be understood as complementary and not a departure from our continued support for traditional physical sports. Many athletes continue to train over long periods, often while balancing work or study and have to rely on a stable and well-governed sporting ecosystem. This Bill preserves the statutory framework that enables that support.”
“Mr Speaker, rise in support of the Singapore Sports Council (Amendment) Bill. I would like to declare my personal connection to sports in Singapore. I am currently serving in my first term as the Deputy President of the Singapore Dragonboat Association, together with hon Member Mr Alex Yeo and was formerly a National Youth Athlete in ten-pin bowling under the National Youth Development Programme. I was a beneficiary of the original Sports Excellence 2000 scheme. Although I left competitive bowling more than two decades ago, I have watched, with great interest, how Singapore sports have evolved since then and our laudable approach in harnessing the potential of our local talents. In the sport of ten-pin bowling, our young bowlers have gone on to win world championships and broadly, our athletes now train with more structured pathways. More importantly, our sporting ecosystem has grown to support not just elite performance, but also inclusion and participation across the community. For example, I understand that there are at least nine para inclusive teams in the dragon-boating community with an estimated 250 para athletes who might be physically or intellectually impaired. I have seen first-hand the discipline and commitment required of all athletes, the importance of strong governance and access to facilities and the impact of initiatives that broaden opportunity – all of which are directly supported and reinforced by the reforms in this Bill. The amendments to the Singapore Sports Council Act updates our legislative framework to better reflect the current sporting environment in Singapore.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you, Acting Minister. I have two supplementary questions. The first one would be: beyond medal outcomes and the increased number of spex awardees, what indicators does the Ministry use to assess the effectiveness of the spex scheme in supporting athletes' welfare and long-term development? For example, are we asking the athletes themselves of the satisfaction levels of spex? For the second one is, what formal mechanisms exist for athletes to provide feedback or raise welfare concerns and how does the Ministry ensure that these concerns are addressed objectively?”
“Thank you, Speaker, and thank you, Minister. I had a SG58 baby, so I did not have the privilege of getting a SG50 or SG60 gift pack. But I know of many mothers and parents were delighted to have them. I have two supplementary questions. Would the Ministry or Government be open to exploring a pilot programme in specific regions or demographics, to assess the feasibility and impact of the Baby Gift on a smaller scale? My second supplementary question will be was there any formal survey or feedback done on the impact of the Baby Gift for both the SG50 and SG60 cohorts?”
“At the same time, I think we can also learn from others: proactive risk mitigation in the UK, systemic harm prevention in the EU, and clear removal timelines from Germany. These remind us that while the digital frontier is global, regulation can reflect and must reflect our local context. I commend MDDI, MinLaw, the Attorney-General’s Chambers and all involved agencies for developing this landmark legislation. This Bill continues Singapore’s proactive response to online harms, giving victims real avenues for redress and ensuring that our digital space remains one of safety, trust and accountability. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill has my full support.”
“Relatedly, would the Ministry consider issuing guidelines to clarify which harms will be prioritised for urgent attention? Such transparency would enhance trust and efficiency. This would also help manage public expectations, streamline workflows within the OSC and enhance confidence in its impartiality. Such a measure could serve as a more proactive alternative as compared to retrospective proposals like an annual report, which for example calls for the publication of annual reports and risk assessments for the preceding financial year. Third, on the OSC. As the OSC is to be established by next year, I seek elaboration on its structure, its staffing and its expertise. Given its wide-ranging powers over privacy, speech and accountability, public confidence in its competence and neutrality is essential. Mr Edwin Tong acknowledges that public education is essential, but I would also like to clarify if OSC is taking this educational role, promoting public awareness of online safety, informing users of their rights and responsibilities, and guiding victims to seek help because an informed public is our very first line of defence. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support this Bill. It represents a comprehensive and forward-looking framework to make our digital space safer and more accountable. Globally, we see similar efforts: from the UK’s Online Safety Act 2023, Germany’s Network Enforcement Act and the EU’s Digital Services Act. Yet Singapore’s approach goes further by recognising new civil wrongs such as online impersonation and inauthentic material abuse, empowering victims beyond mere takedown or criminal models.”
“By recognising this as a statutory civil wrong, the Bill offers victims a clear path to justice. They no longer need to wait for perpetrators to be unmasked or for criminal proof beyond reasonable doubt. Victims can act to restore their good name, remove false content and prevent further misuse of their identity. This reform affirms that digital identity is personal identity – restoring dignity and control to victims and signalling that accountability does not end at the keyboard. Mr Speaker, I also support the introduction of the tort of inauthentic material abuse. With the rise of generative AI, manipulated images and fabricated videos are increasingly used to mislead the public, exploit reputations and erode trust. As technology blurs the line between truth and fabrication, our laws must evolve. Timely action against false and deceptive imagery will help preserve the integrity of public discourse and protect individuals from reputational harm. Mr Speaker, but I would still like to seek clarification on a few points. First, on the Right-of-Reply User Directions under clause 34. This mechanism offers a fast, low-cost way for victims to correct false or defamatory content. However, will it complement or substitute existing remedies under the Defamation Act? Can a victim pursue both concurrently, or only if the Commissioner declines to issue a direction? Clarifying this interplay will help lawyers and users understand how best to obtain swift redress. Second, on directions and orders under clause 26. While immediate intervention is sometimes essential, will the Commissioner conduct a preliminary screening before issuing directions? This ensures that powers are exercised not only quickly but proportionately.”
“Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. The Internet has transformed how we live, work and connect, driving innovation, enabling ideas and creating digital marketplaces where transactions occur at unprecedented speed. Yet, as with every invention, it has also created new opportunities for harm, for deception, harassment and abuse. This Bill is therefore both necessary and timely. It equips vulnerable individuals with tools to protect themselves and ensures that our laws stay relevant in the digital age. It allows victims of online harm to have faster access to justice and we must ensure that in doing so it does not introduce new obstacles that make it harder for victims to seek redress. Sir, allow me to highlight three key aspects that mark a significant step forward in addressing online harm in Singapore. The first, empowering victims through civil remedies; the second, introducing a new thought of online impersonation; the third and last, addressing inauthentic and manipulated media. Together, these measures strengthen accountability, protect dignity and promote responsibility in our digital spaces. Sir, I am heartened that under Part 10, certain online harms, such as image-based child abuse and online impersonation are recognised not only as criminal wrongs but also as civil wrongs. This allows victims to seek redress directly without depending solely on state prosecution. This represents a crucial evolution. As the online sphere becomes central to daily life, individuals should have both the agency and responsibility to safeguard themselves – contributing to a safer shared online environment. Mr Speaker, I particularly applaud the creation of the tort of online impersonation.”
“Thank you, Speaker, and thank you, Minister. I have always been very inspired by how our Municipal Services Office has been improving our neighbourhoods, and I am heartened to know that a similar concept, a social services coordination centre will help to improve the lives of our people. I have one supplementary question. Has the Government any programmes in place aimed at preventing child abuse in the first place, going upstream, with a particular focus on providing support and resources to parents who might face challenges coping with their child's behaviour? This can include targeted counselling services or producing resource guides issued to parents and tailored to the age of their children.”
“I thank the Minister. I have two supplementary questions. Has the Ministry actively conducted studies on other countries on how they manage this topic of time management for teachers? If so, which countries are they, and have there been anything that is implemented in Singapore? The second question is, what targeted initiatives are there being planned to reduce teacher attrition rates, particularly among our younger educators who may feel overwhelmed by workload and pressure?”
“Thank you, Speaker. One supplementary question for the Minister of State. Understand there are considerations to extend the CRU framework beyond Tampines to other towns, if the pilot is successful. I just want to seek clarification, whether this plan also includes private estates like condominiums and private apartments, because I am not just concerned about my HDB residents, I am also concerned about my private estate residents.”
“I thank the Minister of State for shedding some light to the situation there, I have four supplementary questions to ask. What has been the frequency of outages for the micro-grid? When I am on the island chatting with them, they do share that they will request for compensation as outages damage their equipment, so I am concerned about inconveniences and the unseen costs that they might incur. I understand that there is no change in stance in trying to reduce electricity tariff there, so I understand 80 cents per kilowatt hours is fixed all the way to 2034, as reported in The Straits Times last year, which is a long time. Price changes require the approval from EMA. What is the mechanism for these tariff changes? When will it be triggered or reviewed? The SP electricity tariff, as we know, is done every quarter. I am concerned that they might not have an equitable tariff adjustment mechanism. The third is, is there an exit clause in this arrangement without termination penalties? I am concerned they might be penalised should they want to get out of this arrangement. And the last question, probably a bit more technical, but could the Ministry of Trade and Industry, and EMA consider using the framework of how the uniform Singapore electricity price is calculated based on a weighted average of all offtake modal prices, that considers many variables for residents and business owners on Ubin? Because as rightly pointed out, it is almost negligible in the whole system demand of things. I am concerned that they might be the only residents in the whole country who do not have a fair price to essential services like electricity.”
“"We first" means stewardship before short-term gain, so we preserve our environment as a gift to future generations. Ultimately, the measure of our nation is not how fast we advance, but how firmly we hold together, in the decades to come. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Motion. [Applause.]”
“00 am, we walked through the intertidal pools for two solid hours, spotting stingrays, anemones and starfish, and ended the morning at Changi Village over a breakfast of nasi lemak, "youtiao" and wanton mee. I learnt much from the group about the unique seagrass meadow that grows along Changi Beach and we exchanged views on how the stakeholder engagement process for development projects like these can be better. It dawned upon me – that if we want to steer our youths away from despair, or even from vaping, for them to not feel so disconnected, then we must give them causes that matter, not more rules, not more red tape, not more suspensions. Nature can be that sanctuary, that classroom and that source of resilience where they can find that purpose. Environmental protection is not a trend, it is an opportunity. An opportunity to invest in the wellbeing, identity and future of our youth. Mr Deputy Speaker, whether it is supporting families under strain, giving a voice to those at the fringes, or preserving the environment for future generations, the principle is the same – we should measure a society not just by its growth, but by how it cares, listens and plans for the long term. These are not isolated issues, they are strands of a single fabric that binds us as Singaporeans. And it is with this mindset that I turn to the "we first" guiding principle that must shape our collective journey forward. And I know there are many different interpretations of "we first" in this Chamber, but this is mine. "We first" means families before systems – where caregivers in the workforce are supported and not stretched to breaking point. "We first" means those at the margins matter just as much as those in the centre, because every voice in this country, deserves to be heard.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, whether on an offshore island, in a 50-year-old or in a condominium, every Singaporean's needs are valid and every voice must count. And these "edges" are not just geographical, like what I described. In different seasons of life, many of us find ourselves on the margins, living with rare diseases, facing infertility, or struggling quietly in ways that statistics may never capture. If we focus solely on numbers, we risk forgetting what matters most – that we are all Singaporeans, with diverse needs, deserving of care, attention and inclusion. Lastly, let me speak about our shared environment. Singapore has rightly pursued growth. But rapid urbanisation has left many feeling we live in a dense, hot, concrete city. Let us not forget: we aspired to be a City in a Garden – not just a garden in a city. Plans to reclaim 193 hectares in Changi for aviation made headlines recently and it may be necessary, but we must acknowledge the ecological cost; the possible detrimental effects on seagrass meadows, marine ecosystems and biodiversity. But this is not a call to halt development, but a call for balance. Every hectare we reclaim, every tree we fell, comes at a cost. And this price will be paid for by generations after us. On National Day this year, upon their invitation, I joined Julian and Xiao Yun, for an intertidal walk at Changi Beach. They were the two young Singaporeans who raised the petition, calling for HDB to scale back its plans for the Changi reclamation project. Honestly, I was half expecting them to quiz me about my stand on the project but it turns out, all they wanted was to share the magical intertidal pools with me. So, together with dozens of youths and families who were miraculously all awake at 4.”
“About 20 Singaporeans still call Pulau Ubin home. They are custodians of our living heritage, yet they face higher electricity tariffs than us on mainland and at times, have difficulty accessing national schemes. But to this end, I am grateful to have agencies that have actively stepped in to explore how to close these gaps when pointed out – the National Parks Board, the Energy Market Authority, People's Association and the National Environment Agency. It gives me reassurance that I am working with partners that genuinely care for the people. Next, Changi Village. Known to many as a leisure spot, but for many residents and business owners, it is their home and livelihood. While the rest of Singapore progresses, Changi Village often feels overlooked. Roadworks have worsened access and businesses are struggling. Its experience reminds us that progress cannot be measured only by what happens at the centre, while the edges are left behind. I am often asked, "Why do you care so much for small communities like Ubin and Changi Village? Why do you turn up there so often? There is no "political mileage" in doing that." But as Parliamentarians, our duty extends beyond representing the majority. It is to ensure that those on the margins are seen, are heard and are supported. In Pasir Ris, for example, some residents live literally at the edge of the town along areas affected by major construction for the Cross Island Line and the Loyang viaduct. They too feel the pressures of progress; in their case, more than they bargained for. Residents in areas like Flora Estate are eager to embrace our car-lite ambition, yet insufficient bus services make car-lite more of a burden than a choice.”
“But, we must go further and push the boundaries of the support so that the benefits are more impactful and reach more families. A child's vulnerable years do not end after infancy. Parents need time, flexibility and support through toddlerhood and early schooling. And when it comes to caring for ageing parents, many families shoulder equally heavy burdens, from weekly hospital visits for dialysis and chemotherapy, to providing daily supervision for parents with dementia, often while holding full-time jobs. What I have just described is only the tip of the iceberg. That is why I call on both the Government and employers to build an ecosystem where caregiving is not just tolerated, but actively supported. Caregiving should never ever come at the cost of one's career. One should feel no fear of repercussions for choosing a hospital visit with an aged parent over a day at the office. One should feel no guilt for staying home to care of a sick child. If we are serious about reversing declining fertility rates while also caring for an ageing society, two forces pressing on us at the same time, then we must adapt. And this could mean exploring new leave schemes that reflect modern caregiving realities. Perhaps even a distinct "Sandwich Generation Leave"; for the lack of a better name; separate from childcare or medical leave. We can also strengthen the national mental health and support services to help families navigate the maze of dual caregiving. And it requires cultivating workplace cultures that value families as much as productivity. Because at the heart of it, strong families are the foundation of a strong Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, I now turn to Singaporeans whose voices are often overlooked – "我乌敏岛的居民们", my residents from Pulau Ubin.”
“They are doing everything "right", working hard, paying taxes, supporting their families. Yet, many carry a heavy and unseen load and, at times, everything can feel so "wrong" and so overwhelming. I have experienced a glimpse of this myself. In the same year that I welcomed my newborn, my father was diagnosed with cancer. Those days were split between baby care, work and hospital appointments. Fast forward to just this year, whenever my toddler falls sick, I often catch the same illnesses, from the common flu to hand, foot and mouth disease (HFMD). And I know Minister of State Jasmin Lau and her children's book of choice is "Paw Patrol", I think there were many books being introduced in this Chamber. I will introduce my version. Mine is "Bizzy Bear" and I must have gone through the entire series more than five times throughout the entire HFMD episode. While I am now an expert at reciting Bizzy Bear stories, this had knock-on effects on my work and my community engagements. But I was able to get through those moments with a supportive family, both at home and at work, and I am very grateful for them. But I know of many Singaporeans do not have this safety net. For many, the load is far heavier: caring for parents with chronic illnesses, raising several children, taking on extra responsibilities at work just to keep the job and to pay the bills, and then receiving news that a loved one has dementia. Their sacrifices are greater and I feel deeply for them. The Government has made progress, extending paternity leave, creating shared parental leave, strengthening MediSave and MediShield, expanding the Baby Bonus and introducing the Home Caregiving Grant.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion of Thanks to the President's address. It is with deep humility and also with deep gratitude, that I deliver my maiden speech in this House. When I first knocked on doors in Pasir Ris-Changi, many residents did not just share their problems or feedback; they shared their lives with me. A working mom told me how she struggled everyday juggling her job and caring for her toddler and father who now has dementia. An elderly couple on Pulau Ubin spoke about their pride in keeping the island's heritage alive, even with inconveniences that come with living on the island. And a group of youths at Changi Beach showed me the tidal pools with such wonder, reminding me how much they care about the world we live in. These conversations left a very deep impression on me. They remind me that behind every policy, every statistics, there are real people with genuine struggles and hopes. And they are the very reason why I stand here today. For my maiden speech, I wish to focus on three groups of people who are especially close to my heart. First, the sandwiched generation, whose burdens I personally felt as a daughter, a mother and a working professional. Second, those living at the edge of our country, whom I have come to know very fondly through my time at Pasir Ris-Changi, from the offshore island of Ubin to where the East-West line ends at Pasir Ris Town. And lastly, the younger generation, whose future depends on how we safeguard the environment we leave behind. Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me begin with the sandwiched generation. Singaporeans who are raising children while caring for ageing parents, often while juggling work, housing loans and rising costs.”