Hansard, Thursday, 25 September 2025

1 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry tracks the career impact of SkillsFuture credits on Singaporeans who have utilised them in terms of (i) employment status (ii) hours worked and (iii) wage outcomes, since such data may increase take-up rates.

2 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for Education (a) what percentage of SkillsFuture Level-Up participants secured new employment within nine months of enrolment, with a breakdown by age groups 40–49 and 50–59; and (b) what were their median wages before and after completion of training.

3 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the SkillsFuture Mid-Career Training Allowance for mid-career workers aged 40 and above can also cover Singaporeans in their 30s who need to pick up new skills for fast-growing industries; and (b) whether more flexibility can be given for its use for further studies such as to pursue postgraduate qualifications.

4 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the rationale for restricting the SkillsFuture Mid-Career Training Allowance to citizens aged 40 years and above since skills obsolescence affects all ages; (b) whether the Ministry will consider the reskilling needs of workers in their 30s; and (c) whether the Ministry will expand SkillsFuture to support postgraduate qualifications (i) in critical sectors or (ii) in general.

5 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Minister for Education (a) in 2025, how many Singaporeans have (i) used their SkillsFuture credits or (ii) received training allowances to pursue upskilling and reskilling under the SkillsFuture Mid-Career Training Allowance scheme; and (b) how do the numbers in 2025 compare with that of 2024.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 1 to 5 on today's Order Paper, please?

Go ahead.

Sir, to help Singaporeans develop to their full potential throughout life, SkillsFuture Singapore provides a range of broad-based training support that is kept affordable and accessible. Industry-relevant training programmes are subsidised at up to 70% of the course fees for all Singaporeans. At age 25, Singaporeans receive $500 in SkillsFuture Credit, which they can use to develop their skills and interests.

For Singaporeans who are 40 and above, they can use the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme (SFLP). This programme helps them to pursue a substantive skills reboot and helps them stay competitive in a rapidly changing economy. We are prioritising support for our mid-career Singaporeans, as they may face higher risk of skills obsolescence, having completed their original work-ready qualifications many years ago. At this stage in life, given their heavy family and work responsibilities, they also face higher opportunity costs in pursuing upskilling and reskilling, particularly when they take up substantive courses that require greater time and financial commitment.

If they choose to pursue substantive training, the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme helps them lower the opportunity cost in two ways.

First, by providing further course fee support in the form of the SkillsFuture Credit (Mid-Career) top-up of $4,000. Introduced in May 2024, individuals can use the Credit to further offset out-of-pocket training costs. This is over and above course fee subsidies of up to 90%.

Second, we provide financial support for those pursuing longer substantive training, such as full qualifications. The SkillsFuture Mid-Career Training Allowance helps to partially offset income loss during full-time training. From 1 May 2025, eligible individuals can receive a training allowance, sized at 50% of their average income over the last 12 months, up to a cap of $3,000 per month, for 24 months in their lifetime.

Today, the SkillsFuture Credit (Mid-Career) top-up can be used for over 7,000 courses, of which, about 700 full-time training programmes qualify for training allowance.

The SkillsFuture Level-Up courses are carefully curated to support substantive training, with the aim of improving a person's employability. They include full qualifications offered by the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs). These programmes provide good upgrading pathways that continue to enjoy good wage premium, as our studies have shown.

Individuals looking to transition into another sector can consider SkillsFuture Career Transition Programmes that provide training for up to 12 months as well as employment facilitation. Between June 2022 when the Programme started and December 2024, about 55% of almost 4,300 SkillsFuture Career Transition Programme trainees who were previously unemployed found new jobs within six months after course completion.

As of July 2025, there are about 330 SkillsFuture Career Transition Programmes offered in 21 sectors with good hiring opportunities such as Information and Communications, Professional Services and Food Services.

The take-up of the Level-Up Programme has been positive. In the first year of implementation from 1 May 2024 to 30 April 2025, over 36,000 Singapore Citizens used their SkillsFuture Credit (Mid-Career) with claims amounting to over $24 million. From the claims data, the number of individuals taking SkillsFuture Career Transition Programmes increased by about six times from around 1,500 to around 8,500, compared to the same period in the preceding year, and those who used the SkillsFuture Credit for full qualifications increased by about 2.5 times from around 3,000 to around 7,000.

Within the first three months of implementation, over 3,200 Singapore Citizens have been successful in their training allowance applications for full-time long-form training, with over $30 million in claims committed as at end-July 2025.

To build on this momentum, we will expand the Level-Up Programme in the following ways for the immediate term.

First, as announced at Budget 2025, we will expand the training allowance to part-time long-form training from early next year, to support mid-career Singaporeans who choose to pursue such training while continuing to work. This is estimated to benefit 10,000 Singaporeans annually.

Second, we will continue to refresh and expand the number of IHL full qualifications and stackable micro-credentials, as well as SkillsFuture Career Transition Programmes to meet emerging skills needs. For example, over 100 SkillsFuture Career Transition Programmes were launched this year in high-demand areas such as Artificial Intelligence.

Third, we will work with sector agencies and industry partners to include more courses offered by industry leaders and private training providers that are well-recognised by industry and confer credentials that lead to strong employment outcomes.

We will continue to monitor the training needs of adult learners over their life stages as we expand the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme. In particular, let me respond to two suggestions that Members have raised.

First, on extending the Level-Up Programme to younger Singaporeans. For now, younger Singaporeans in their 30s can continue to benefit from the broad-based training support that I mentioned earlier. This includes subsidies at up to 70% of course fees for all Singaporeans. Additional support will be given to lower-wage workers in their 30s. Earlier this year, the Ministry of Manpower announced the Workfare Skills Support Level-Up Programme to better support these workers in upgrading to full qualifications that can uplift their wages. From early 2026, lower-wage workers in their 30s will receive monthly training allowance when they pursue eligible long-form training, similar to the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme.

The second suggestion is to extend the training allowance to postgraduate programmes. Today, the training allowance supports mid-career substantive training up to the undergraduate degree level. Mid-career Singaporeans can use their SkillsFuture Credit (Mid-Career) of $4,000 to offset the out-of-pocket training fees for postgraduate Masters’ programmes offered by the autonomous universities. We have not extended the training allowance to postgraduate programmes as most jobs in Singapore do not require such qualifications. We are also careful not to inadvertently perpetuate a paper chase at the Masters’ level. Individuals can decide whether it is worthwhile to invest in a Masters’ degree, given its high cost but also potentially high returns on investment, however, this applies to a small number of jobs in Singapore. We will continue to monitor the needs for postgraduate training in emerging sectors and adjust our level of support accordingly.

We welcome feedback and will continue to monitor the employment outcomes from the increased training take-up.

The success of the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme ultimately must be measured by how confident mid-career Singaporeans are in using their newly acquired skills to navigate the disruptions in the economy ahead, and cannot just be measured by employment outcomes alone, since training alone cannot guarantee jobs and may not lead to immediate employment gains.

To help our people succeed, we need to continue strengthening the whole-of-society partnerships between Government, individuals, unions, industry and training institutions to build a culture of lifelong learning so Singaporeans can stay resilient, employable and competitive.

Mr Patrick Tay.

Speaker, I just have one supplementary question. Thank you to the Senior Minister of State for the response. In Singapore, SkillsFuture is divided into two broad aspects: the employers-supported aspect as well as the individual-initiated aspect. And if you look at resident training participation, particularly last year, 2024, it has dropped to a nine-year-low of 40.7%, compared to about 49.9% in 2021.

My question to the Senior Minister of State is, what can we do, or can employers do more? And how can we get them to better support both, from the employer-supported aspect as well as the individual-initiated training, as we embrace SkillsFuture in the next lap?

Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Patrick Tay for his question. Indeed, we would ask for employers to do more to support our SkillsFuture movement. Overall, it has not been bad. If you look at the proportion of training places taken up under SkillsFuture, about 43% to 45% are employers-supported, which means that the learner, the worker, is not actually paying out of their SkillsFuture Credit.

And overall, if you take a look at the last 10 years, the numbers have indeed increased. We have seen an increase in the number of employers that are involved and an increase in the number of training places supported by employers. But as the overall number of training places has increased, the proportion has remained relatively static. We think there is room for the proportion to increase and for employers to do more.

There is also a benefit for the system and our movement, if employers can do more. Because if they are sending their workers for training, it means that they have recognised and are signalling the importance of such skills upgrading for their business and for their industry. It means that their workers and the learners under SkillsFuture have the assurance that these are industry relevant and are going to help them progress in their career. And it helps to, then embed this culture of lifelong learning as part of adult work.

Some of it is about the business decisions and the sense of investment in their people. And some of it is also looking at the processes within their companies, in terms of reducing the frictions to allow people to go for training, have the work covered and think about the job transformation that will allow the embedding of lifelong learning as part of the career.

So, I think there is room for the employers to do more. Some of it is about decisions in terms of the returns on investment that they will have and some of it is about reducing the frictions for their workers as learners in pursuing lifelong learning.

Mr Henry Kwek.

Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State about the learnings that we have, given the fact that this is new programme and it is attracting a different group of Singaporeans.

I note in particular the statistics of around more than 50% of people who are able to get a job after this training. Is there any preliminary sense of what happens to the rest? I am asking because these groups are perfectly motivated people – they have a full-time job and then they transit, they retrain and, therefore, they should logically be able to get such skills because they highly motivated and are employable. Therefore, are there any lessons that we can learn or preliminary conclusions, especially with regard to matching the aspirations and qualifications of the trainees with the future industry needs?

I thank Mr Kwek for the question. It is an important issue, but it is a little bit preliminary, it is a little bit premature. The programme is not very old and some of the types of gains that he is talking about will indeed take years to be realised. You transition into a new industry or even stay within the industry but now with the new set of qualifications. Although you have the qualifications, you now have to apply them to the job, develop your career prospects within this new role in this new task. And it can take some time for these to be realised in a metric that we can measure and present to the House.

So, in the short term, some of the things that we have learned are about the need to have better matching and better integration between the curricula, the services of the training providers and the needs of the industry; and to look to see how we can bring the employers and in particular, large employers, those that we think of as SkillsFuture developers or Queen Bees, together with the trade associations, have them either participate in the training or inform the training providers about the curricula, the job roles and the particular skills and tasks that the learners are engaged in.

The better we can do that, the more confidence the employers will have in the approach that we are taking and hence, the more confidence that workers and learners will have in dealing with the opportunity cost that is very real for someone undergoing training.

So, those are some of the short-term lessons. I think the issues that the Member has highlighted are indeed important, but it is a little bit early to have a definitive comment on that.

Dr Hamid Razak.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for the detailed reply. I understand and appreciate the reasons why 40 was used as an age cut-off for the SkillsFuture Mid-Career Training Allowance. I am just wondering whether the Ministry has data on the appeals put to the Ministry for those aged 40 and below for the SkillsFuture Mid-Career Training Allowance – because studying those data may show us how better we can support the age group beyond just SkillsFuture itself.

Sir, I thank Dr Hamid Razak for the question. Indeed, the decision to think of the age cut-off at 40 is informed by data, but not so much on the data that we have on appeals. I do not have the direct data for appeals received or granted. Perhaps the Member can return with a further question, if that is the focus.

The data that informs us about the age cut-off is about the risks of a given individual becoming unemployed, and the length of time taken for that individual to then go back into the workforce and find a job. And we can see that those in their 40s have a higher risk of becoming unemployed, potentially because of skills obsolescence, and take longer to then go back into the workforce and to find employment, as compared to people in their 20s and 30s.

And so for that reason, we have chosen the cut-off for that particular tier to be at 40. I just want to take the opportunity to emphasise that it does not mean that anybody under the age of 30 does not have assistance. There are the subsidies that are available to all Singaporeans at up to 70%, potentially rising to 90% if it is employer-driven; there is the SkillsFuture Credit that is available to everybody above the age of 25; and the moves that we are making to support lower-wage workers that are above the age of 30 that are coming and have already been announced.

I would also point out that there are plenty of training opportunities available to Singaporeans of all ages that are not under SkillsFuture. Many organisations make training opportunities available. The public sector is one, for example, that provides training through the Civil Service College and so public sector officers do not have to use the SkillsFuture Credit in order to develop new opportunities through training. And there are many other employers that are doing something similar.

Mr Kenneth Tiong.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I have two supplementary questions. The first is about the age cut-off. The Government's own data of the labour force survey findings of 2024 shows that there is a drop in training participation, falling fastest in the 30 to 39 age group, from 49.5% to 44.7%. My first supplementary question is this: does that not suggest that the 30 to 39 age group should be the subject of greater help, particularly for the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme?

And the second question is in regards to the clause restricting the Mid Career Training Allowance to undergraduate qualifications. On Monday, Deputy Prime Minister Gan said that there were five growth areas: precision medicine, AI, green economy, autonomous vehicles, space, and there is a strong research and development (R&D) and reskilling component for all of these industries. For those that have reliable data that I have managed to find, most of the R&D jobs – 90% to 100% of them – do require postgraduate degrees; and generally, in the industry, it appears that 30% to 40% of the jobs in the industry do require postgraduate degrees. So, I will just ask the Senior Minister of State, does he not agree that the clause restricting postgraduate qualifications does not really align with the spirit of the Ministry of Trade and Industry's future strategy?

Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Tiong for the two questions. For his first question on the age cut-off and the training participation, I think that we should not take the view that what we must strive for is for everyone to use up their SkillsFuture Credit as soon as possible, and to engage in training as soon as possible. The idea is to make sure that there is an assurance that at any time of your career over the course of your life, you will have the opportunity to reskill should there be a need. And so, if there is no need – you are within a career, you are developing your professional skillsets, there is opportunity ahead of you – then, that may be the right thing for you to do, rather than using your SkillsFuture Credit and going for a course for a certification.

We do want you to get into the culture of lifelong learning. And so perhaps, if there is an interest, a small course, please do so. But I think we should not necessarily see the data in a negative light. It may well be that that category of people does not need to utilise the SkillsFuture Credit in quite the same way and may need to do so at a future point in their career – which is its purpose.

For the second point in terms of the postgraduate support, as I have explained, we are open to considering if there is a need. The issue is whether today, the supply of people with appropriate qualifications in order to drive the development of those areas is constrained by the type of training that is provided. It does not appear to be a direct indication at this point in time.

We would also not want, as we are developing these programmes, to create a paper chase. Certainly, we do not want people to go and chase after postgraduate qualifications if they are not going to result in outcomes for that individual, which are useful to that individual.

So, I think we have started this. We will learn from the lessons as we implement it. And should the need be there, we can always consider it again. But at the moment, as I have explained my original answer, it is not that there are no postgraduate qualifications that are supported. It is specifically the training allowance that is not applied, but the SkillsFuture Credit can be used for Masters programmes at our autonomous universities, and those Master's programmes indeed do support the various niche areas that that Mr Tiong highlighted in his supplementary question.

Last supplementary question. Mr Vikram Nair.

Thank you. I thank the Senior Minister of State, especially for the explanation of the Mid Career SkillsFuture Grant. The first part of my question actually was about the utilisation of SkillsFuture credits generally. Because I think in the middle of this year there was a report that said 70% of eligible households have not used the one-off $500 top-up for SkillsFuture, which is set to expire at the end of this year. So, taking the Senior Minister of State's point that SkillsFuture is meant for the long term, does the Senior Minister of State see this as a problem and is this something for which, say, the expiry should be extended, or something for which we should encourage people to utilise more quickly?

Sir, I thank Mr Nair for highlighting the expiry of the $500 SkillsFuture Credit top-up that we have benefited from. I would encourage all Members of this House who I am sure are in the eligible age group, please do use up your expiring credits by the end of the year. Many courses are eligible for that subsidy.

But that is not the end of the SkillsFuture Credit, and there is the additional $500 opening Credit and then the $4,000 that is available for the long term which does not expire.

We do want to encourage people to take a few courses; and for some of the courses, you do not need to use very much of your SkillsFuture credits. Get into the habit of understanding what does lifelong learning look like and what does it mean to take a course while you are working if you have not done something like this before.

In terms of the overall utilisation, we do see a spread of individuals of about 30% in their 40s, 30% in their 50s and 30% in their 60s, which then highlights that actually, this is about giving assurance that at any point during your career, if you should need a reboot, an opportunity to develop a new set of skills, there will be support and opportunity created through the SkillsFuture movement.

So, in general, for most of the SkillsFuture Credit, there is no rush, and you can start to sample and set yourself up for the future. But for one particular tranche, I would encourage all Members and also, as you go and visit your constituents, to remind them that this $500 of SkillsFuture Credit is expiring by 31 December 2025. It is worth having your first taste of what it feels like to do lifelong learning and make use of those credits to do a course.

Indeed, thank you for the reminder. I must remind myself and my constituents this weekend.

6 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) how will Punggol residents' safety be prioritised when autonomous vehicles (AV) are trialed in the fourth quarter of 2025; (b) how does the Ministry ensure that rides offered by AVs are affordable and accessible to residents; and (c) how will the Ministry involve public transport workers and ensure they have a role to play when AVs are rolled out.

7 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) what key performance indicators will be used to measure the success of autonomous vehicle trials; (b) what safety benchmarks are in place; and (b) how legal liability and system security risks will be addressed.

8 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) what system-level benefits such as (i) improved accessibility (ii) reliability of public transport and (iii) congestion and emissions reductions, Singapore anticipates from autonomous vehicle (AV) deployment; and (b) whether such efficiencies may enable more affordable public transport in the future.

9 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) how will the Government’s autonomous vehicle (AV) strategy affect driving-related jobs; (b) what new job opportunities are expected; and (c) how the Ministry plans to support workers in transitioning to AV-related roles.

Mr Speaker, if I may have your permission to take Question Nos 6 to 9 in today’s Order Paper together?

Please proceed.

Autonomous vehicles (AVs) can enhance connectivity and create good jobs for Singaporeans.

AVs will add to our public transport network without running up against fundamental manpower constraints. We will start by deploying autonomous shuttles to operate scheduled, fixed-route services within our towns. These shuttle services can directly connect residents to key transport nodes and amenities such as the market and polyclinic.

There are three pilot routes in Punggol. If successful, we intend to expand the service to other towns that are further away from the city, such as Tengah. Besides AV shuttles, we will be piloting AV buses as public buses, starting with SBST bus services 400 and 191, which serve Marina Bay and one-north respectively.

The Ministry of Transport (MOT) and the Land Transport Authority (LTA) have put in place safeguards to ensure safe AV deployment in the regulatory sandbox as provided for in the Road Traffic Act. Every AV must pass a safety assessment before it is authorised to operate on public roads. The vehicle must be able to respond safely to the behaviour of other road users and adhere to traffic rules. For a start, a safety operator will be on board the AV at all times. All AVs deployed on roads must have third-party liability insurance, covering death, bodily injury and property damage. Third parties would be compensated in the event of accidents, similar to conventional vehicles.

The AV industry will bring new job opportunities for Singaporeans, including for our transport workers. There will be roles such as safety operators, remote operators, engineers and technicians.

As the supply of AV vehicles will be limited at the start, there will be no displacement effect for our taxi and private-hire vehicle drivers in the short term. That said, we recognise their anxiety. The Government and AV operators will roll out training and reskilling programmes to help drivers to take on opportunities in the AV sector, or to move into other sectors if they prefer. We will put these programmes in place early to provide drivers with options and time to go for reskilling.

Ms Yeo Wan Ling.

I declare I am the Executive Secretary of the National Transport Workers' Union. The announcement of the roll-out of the AV shuttle trials in Punggol has been met with both excitement and curiosity. I thank the Ministry for putting in a phased approach for the roll-out with safety mapping and terrain customisation of Punggol streets, before passengers services start. This will no doubt allow our Punggol residents to be familiarised with the technology and services, and to be more confident of the use of AVs in their daily commute.

What are the safety key performance indicators to be achieved during the non-passenger phase of the Punggol AV trials before graduating into passenger services? And will there be a town-wide consultation with Punggol residents during the various roll-out phases?

In addition, I note that there has been some identification of new jobs that would be created with AV trials, such as safety drivers and remote operators which the Senior Minister of State has talked about. How will the Ministry direct the appointed AV service providers to work with the transport unions and associations on prioritising these jobs for existing transport workers and to make more accessible the application for such jobs to a wider group of transport workers?

I thank the Member Ms Yeo Wan Ling for raising these questions. She has been a very, very active proponent for workers in the transport industry – in particular, after we have shared about our AV plans.

First and foremost, safety is a key priority for MOT and LTA. And that is why we are taking a phased approach to deploy the use of AV services. Firstly, before AVs are allowed on public roads in Singapore. They are subject to LTA's AV assessment framework, which requires them to pass a closed-circuit test at the Centre of Excellence for Testing and Research of Autonomous Vehicles (CETRAN).

Secondly, all AVs are required to undergo a preparatory phase with a safety operator on board at all times to map the routes to calibrate the sensors and fine-tune relevant artificial intelligence (AI) models. All shuttles are also monitored in real-time with performance data collected and analysed to ensure safe and reliable operations.

Apart from that, when we first identified the routes for trial in Punggol, we have taken care to identify what we call as "PUDOs", pick up and drop-off points, where there is adequate safety distance for onboarding as well as disembarking of commuters. At the same time, we are looking forward to having a bigger and engagement, a more widespread engagement with residents in Punggol, in particular those who go to the preschools, the schools as well as Active Ageing Centres to sensitise them to the use of the AVs on the roads.

On her second question, when it comes to jobs, I had shared in my main reply that the Government will work actively with the unions to identify new job roles and to also put in place training and reskilling programmes early. Just very broadly, at this point in time, we see that there are potential new job roles in the ecosystem relevant to AV operators. These would be, for instance, in the areas of engineering and software development, depot operations, vehicle and fleet operations. There are also potential roles with the AV tech providers in the areas of software development, cyber security and compliance. And lastly, for enablers of the AV ecosystem, such as, in the areas of safety testing and accreditation, actuary or claims processing, as well as, cyber security and compliance.

So, these are just very broadly some of the roles that we have identified, but this would be an evolving journey and we hope to do this together with our transport workers.

Mr Edward Chia.

Thank you, Speaker. I would like to say that the introduction of AVs means exciting opportunities also for our young. So, I would just like to ask Senior Minister of State, how is our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) participating in these trials and are there learning opportunities for students in our IHLs?

My second supplementary question is with regard to system-wide benefits, such as, accessibility, in particular. For routes that are currently not viable, does the Ministry see that introduction of AVs create new opportunities for new routes? For example, night riders, bus services and if so, does the Ministry intend to run pilot trials for night rider bus services on AVs?

My last supplementary question is with regard to technology convergence with light rail systems. Does the Ministry see there is an opportunity for AVs to be running on tracks that will lead to better system reliability on light rail systems?

I thank the Member for the questions that he has raised. Firstly, indeed, we are working closely with our IHLs. I had mentioned in my reply earlier that we are already working with the Nanyang Technological University's CETRAN, which is a centre of excellence when it comes to AV testing. So, there are opportunities for us to work with IHLs when it comes to safety testing, as well as making sure that their curriculum looks into areas of AV technology to prepare them for when AV becomes more commonplace in our ecosystem.

Secondly, when it comes to accessibility, indeed, we are looking at routes that are less well served by the public transport system, for a variety of reasons. They could be further away from the main transport nodes. Also, ridership could be lower. There could also be instances where they are not being served because we face difficulties in finding drivers for night rides, for instance. So, there will be particular operational hours which are deemed to be less popular with drivers and we see that there is an opportunity for us to use AVs in those circumstances.

On his last question, we will take a look at AV technology. It is evolving rapidly and we would remain open and see how we could use AV technology in as broad a range of transport vehicles as possible.

Last supplementary question. Mr Sharael Taha.

I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for answering questions on AVs. Two supplementary questions from me. Thank you for sharing that AVs must meet the AV safety framework. Can I just confirm that the framework also includes assessment on capability of the system under adverse weather conditions and also redundancy of system, in particular, for cybersecurity?

My second question is, and the Senior Minister of State mentioned it earlier, AVs have the potential of helping us serve the quieter areas in towns. One possible area is the area in Jalan Loyang Besar. Can the Senior Minister of State share a bit more about the timeline to scale up these pilots and how can we learn quickly and scale the use of AV in our towns?

I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. First and foremost, definitely, I think we are seeing quite extreme weather conditions happening all around the world and in Singapore. So, the AV technology and what we are deploying on our roads is as tested, able to manage adverse weather conditions.

On the second question that he asked was on cybersecurity, if I am not wrong. So, the operators must implement robust security measures and protocols which are regularly reviewed to address evolving threats and to maintain system integrity. This is further guided by Technical Reference 68 (TR 68) in Singapore, Part Three, which sets out the cybersecurity principles and the best practices for AVs, covering areas, such as, secure communications, intrusion detection and resilience against remote access attacks.

The Member's last question was on timeline. Because the use of AVs in the community is quite novel still, we are taking a more phased approach.

So, for instance, for the pilots in Punggol, we are taking about one or two months to collect the data to conduct mapping with the use of the sensors, to collect the data to make sure that the AVs have all the data necessary. And the safety operators on board are also familiar with what to do, if there should be emergency situations. So, that is the first phase, always with a safety operator on board. The second stage we are inviting those who are interested to take the AVs to try out the technology. It will be definitely safe by then, because the AVs would have been running around the roads for some time conducting mapping.

But apart from the technical performance indicators, what we are also doing through the pilot deployment is to socialise people to the idea of having the AVs on the road. That is why we are taking, really, a step by step approach to make sure that not only do we have the technical specifications, the performance indicators in place, that also our members of the public are socialised to the AVs. And that is why the roll-out is not as fast as some of us would like it to be, but we think that overall, this is safer and more acceptable to the public.

So, after we do this pilot trial in deployment in Punggol, we are definitely thinking of rolling it out to more areas, and that is why I have shared about Tengah. And if there are other suggestions from other Members in this House as to what are the other areas that we can roll this out in, we are more than happy to take in that feedback.

10 Mr Ng Chee Meng asked the Acting Minister for Transport what is the progress of feasibility studies on the Seletar MRT Line where plans were first announced in 2019.

Mr Speaker, Sir, feasibility studies for the Seletar Line are still ongoing, including on land use, engineering feasibility and environmental impact. We will provide further details when ready.

Mr Ng.

Mr Speaker, I have been rolling this Parliamentary Question (PQ) over since Monday, because transport connectivity is important. I have heard from Minister Jeffrey Siow that connecting to the Cross Island Line is a possibility, but currently, it is still very congested and honestly, connectivity in Jalan Kayu Fernvale can be improved.

So, two quick supplementary questions. I understand the complexities, but can we have a more definitive timeline? After all, it has been six years since the studies have begun.

The second supplementary question is: in the meantime, would the Ministry of Transport (MOT) be putting in better bus connectivity? While I understand it is not the most efficient, this would be needed for the long interim.

I thank the Member for his supplementary questions and I am very well aware that he has rolled over this question several times. I know he is very, very concerned for his Jalan Kayu residents and also, residents in the North East area.

I will first say that rail projects, as we all know, are major public investments and they do require careful consideration of a variety of factors. This include current and future land use needs, and that is why we also need to look at engineering feasibility and also potential environmental impacts. We have to work with the relevant planning agencies to assess the demand and the implementation timeline of the project so as to be able to support existing and future developments along the corridor, as well as sourcing for suitable sites for a train depot, which are large facilities.

This is followed by detailed engineering studies to ascertain the engineering feasibility and the appropriate corridor and station locations to maximise the catchment while trying to minimise inconveniences and disruptions as much as possible, during the construction phase.

We are already doing this as quickly as we can, but at the same time, are making sure that no stones are left unturned. We are working in close consultation with other land use agencies such as the Urban Redevelopment Authority, the Housing and Development Board, and JTC.

On the Member's second question with regard to concerns that residents currently have on transport accessibility, we have shared earlier in the House that when the Cross Island Line Phase 1 and Punggol Extension open in the early 2030s, residents in the North and North East will have more options for travelling to many locations.

While the works for the Cross Island Line are happening, in the meantime, we are looking to implement other measures to increase public transport capacity in the North East region. So, the Member has talked about buses. Indeed, since the launch of the Bus Connectivity Enhancement Programme, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has introduced five new peak hour bus services as alternative options to the NEL and has also enhanced the five existing peak hour bus services. In addition, the LTA has enhanced the travel smart journeys programme earlier this year to encourage commuters in the North East to shift their commutes to off peak periods, or to remode their journeys to eligible express bus services.

Lastly, I would also like to mention that we will continue to make enhancements to the bus services under the programme, which I have shared, the Bus Connectivity Enhancement Programme. This includes introducing more peak hour express bus services as alternative options for residents to complement busier Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) lines like the North East Line. And we will be sharing more details as we are progressively identifying and introducing these enhancements.

Mr Andre Low.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have filed a PQ on the Seletar Line for subsequent Sitting, so I will just ask my supplementary question today.

I understand that feasibility studies are still ongoing. The original indicative timeline that was initially announced for the Seletar Line was sometime in the 2040s. Given that the NEL overcrowding issues are quite bad already today, and I understand the Cross Island Line is upcoming, but the proposed routing for the Seletar Line is likely to be more of a direct parallel and provide more direct loading relief for the NEL. So, given that, will the Ministry consider accelerating the timeline of the Seletar Line's development?

I thank the Member for his question. As I have shared, the feasibility studies are ongoing and where the studies confirm that the line is feasible, we expect to complete the line in phases from the 2040s.

11 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs whether the Singapore Prison Service will review its facilities and procedures to give public confidence of its ability to handle prisoners with serious health conditions who are prone to infections.

The Singapore Prison Service (SPS) has a healthcare delivery system that is aligned with national standards. Inmates receive appropriate levels of primary medical care within the Prison Medical Complex.

In the case of inmates with complex medical conditions, medical experts may advise that there is a need for highly specialised treatment, which is not available in the Complex, unless our prisons are to be outfitted to be exactly like public healthcare institutions (PHIs) and National Specialty Centres (NSCs), with the same type of medical expertise – which is not a sensible option. In such cases, the inmate may receive his/her treatment at the PHIs and NSCs.

Ms Denise Phua. Yes, Ms Sylvia Lim?

Speaker, I would like to ask supplementary questions for Question No 11. I raised my hand. May I ask some supplementary questions?

Okay, I will allow you to do so.

Thank you, Speaker. So, I have three supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State on this matter.

First, I would like to understand more about the Ministry's response to the recent sentencing judgment in Mr Ong Beng Seng's case. Because in the judgment, it was found by the sentencing judge that, as mentioned by the Senior Minister of State, SPS has an adequate healthcare system to manage inmates with complex and serious medical conditions in conjunction with the public healthcare institutions. But that does not address the enhanced risk of potentially fatal infections and falls. So, based on what Senior Minister of State said earlier, does he accept that there is no way that Prisons can actually address this concern of the Courts with regard to potentially fatal infections and falls?

The second question is, I would like to have his affirmation that, in the public interest, the law should apply evenly to everyone and there should not be any perception that ill health is seen as a licence to commit crimes and escape punishment. So, to that extent, the Ministry and SPS should always review whether its facilities should be enhanced to care for, perhaps, even more complex healthcare situations, as healthcare technology improves.

And last of all, on a broader level in handling prisoners with serious health conditions, I understand from the Prisons Act that there is an option – if the Court were to sentence a seriously ill prisoner to imprisonment, there is an option for the Minister to actually issue an external placement order, meaning that he orders the Commissioner of Prisons to move the inmate to a more suitable place in view of the inmate's, perhaps, terminal illness, and so on. So, I wonder if he could confirm whether the Minister has actually ever exercised this power since the provision came into force.

I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. Indeed, as I have shared earlier, our healthcare delivery system is aligned to the national standards. Maybe the Member is not aware of what we have in place.

We have medical care protocols in place and a healthcare system that can manage inmates with varying conditions. I work very closely with Prisons and I have come across many of such cases, including those with serious and complex medical conditions, such as those requiring dialysis, active chemotherapy and radiotherapy, stroke or post-operative care. And also, we have established infection control protocols in place that are aligned with standards practised in the PHIs. Healthcare staff in SPS also adhere to infection control standards, such as observing all the different protocols. Practically, you will find the standards very similar to what you can get outside.

We also have negative pressure cells for infection control, for example, COVID-19 or even tuberculosis. To that extent, ours is not something very different from what you see outside. We are also subjected to inspection or audits by the Ministry of Health regularly.

What we also do is that we make our medical centre relevant. For example, we have the electronic medical records and we have telemedicine, which we enhanced. We also have things in relation to how we provide opportunities for those with chronic illnesses; we even have dialysis machines.

So, we will continue to make sure that we provide the necessary healthcare standards to our inmates.

At times, I receive messages or emails from the loved ones of our inmates. Definitely, they are worried about the healthcare of their loved ones. SPS would try their best to address the issues. If there are needs relating to their medicine or even the care that they require, SPS will do so.

Nevertheless, we must recognise that the majority of our inmates have drug addiction matters, so the medicine that we give have to be appropriate for them. So, sometimes you may hear, "I would like to have stronger medicine" and so on. But I want to assure Members that our doctors and our healthcare staff are very much attuned to the needs of the inmates.

The Member also mentioned about the judgment that has been made. Essentially, we maintain that we have an adequate healthcare system and protocol. But the judge will have to decide based on the facts of the case. And we have, as the Member quoted, the external placement scheme. I think it is an option that Prisons can take on and this is not something relating to what Prisons can decide. We have a medical advisory panel and we have an external placement review board. And we have done so; we have had cases where we have allowed the person to go on such a scheme.

Essentially, I want to assure the Member that we will look after our inmates. They are fellow human beings; they need the care. But if we cannot take care of them within the prison set-up, we will work with the PHIs. And it is not only PHIs which are close to us. If there are needs that you cannot find in a certain PHI, we will go to a setting that is more appropriate. For those who may need additional support or the circumstances vary, we have the external placement scheme.

At the end of the day, you need not worry how your loved ones as well as your constituents will be looked after when they enter the prison. We will also continue to improve the setting – because whoever you are, we want to take care of you, and we want to make sure that you have a meaningful rehabilitation and reintegration journey.

12 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health whether subsidised patients can be transferred directly from a National Healthcare Group hospital to a SingHealth hospital without needing a new polyclinic referral to maintain their subsidies.

Subsidised patients who are transferred to another public healthcare institution to continue the care for their condition, can retain their subsidy status without the need for a polyclinic referral. This applies whether within the same cluster or between different clusters.

Ms Denise Phua.

I thank the Minister of State for the direct answer. I was asking this question on behalf of a resident and members of the Breast Cancer Foundation. I am not sure if what the Minister of State has just said is actually communicated and also practised on the ground. So, I will appreciate if that could be done, so that they have less concerns while already going through a lot of anxieties due to their medical conditions.

I thank the Member for the feedback given. As far as I am aware, it is practised. But perhaps I could engage the Member to get some specific details of the case to understand where the gap is and why that was not communicated to the patient.

13 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for National Development how frequently are audits and maintenance works conducted for HDB rental flats.

Pre-COVID-19, for occupied rental flats, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) visited these flats annually to identify those that require repairs or maintenance. This practice was however disrupted when COVID-19 safe management measures were imposed and HDB conducted physical inspections in response to tenants’ feedback instead.

Post-COVID-19, HDB has been working to resume proactive inspection and maintenance but in a more efficient and sustainable way, such as by bundling and outsourcing inspection alongside other related works. Tenants can continue to alert HDB should they require repair or maintenance assistance and HDB will attend to these requests.

We will share more next year about audits and maintenance works for HDB rental flats.

Ms Denise Phua.

I thank the Senior Minister of State. I am not sure if there were actually proactive preventive maintenance, even before COVID-19, but I will trust the Senior Minister of State for her answer. But first, I want to express my gratitude to HDB's rental headquarters department at Sims Drive for being really supportive to all my appeals so far. But as I – and I think other Members of Parliament as well – conduct house-to-house visits, I often see rental flats in conditions that are concerning: jammed gates, spoiled windows, bad peeling paint, and so on. And I wonder if there can be some urgency and to provide also more resources to the HDB rental team so that they can expedite their plans to provide more proactive, preventive maintenance for these rental flats.

I thank the Member for her supplementary questions and for also sharing her concerns for rental flat tenants staying in her area. She mentioned that in her rounds, she has observed that there were instances where there were jammed gates and windows, and also some paint peeling issues.

I would like to share that in the rental agreement with HDB, our tenants are actually responsible for the maintenance and repair of their flats, as set out in the tenancy agreement. But that said, HDB often assists with repairs of functional defects, and this would include areas such as spalling concrete, ceiling leaks and cracks, water seepage, popping tiles. We can definitely look into the instances where she had mentioned about jammed doors and gates, because this would impede their functionality.

When it comes to painting, however, this falls into the category of aesthetics in nature, and it could also be very manpower intensive. Because sometimes, the painting works are not just about the external walls or the gates, but sometimes it also involves interior painting as well. Where such situations arise, we will have to work with the tenant for the tenant to move out and for the belongings to be taken out, for us to undertake the full repainting works. In these instances, HDB will try to work with community partners to see how to help tenants during this process.

14 Mr David Hoe asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry will consider studying or piloting an age-appropriate SkillsFuture scheme for primary to post-secondary students from lower-income households to have access to subsidised out-of-school opportunities; (b) if so, what targeting and guardrails such as means-testing, school referral, per-child caps, and approved providers can apply; and (c) how can outcomes such as participation and progression be evaluated.

I thank the Member for his question. The Ministry of Education (MOE) provides all students with opportunities to discover and develop their potential. Our schools curate and structure such opportunities for them based on their learning needs, interests and strengths. At the same time, we do offer financial support for lower-income students so that they are not deprived of opportunities to access these programmes. This is a more effective approach than subsidising access to a wider marketplace of out-of-school programmes through a SkillsFuture scheme.

In terms of after-school programmes, our schools run a wide range of co-curricular activities, and talent and enrichment programmes for our students. For example, for students with sporting potential, MOE runs the Junior Sports Academy Programme, which allows primary school students from all backgrounds to participate in a range of sports and discover their sporting strengths and interests. MOE also provides Opportunity Fund grants to schools for them to subsidise co-curricular development opportunities for students from low-income households.

Beyond these, all primary schools have Student Care Centres that provide a conducive and structured after-school environment for students to develop their 21st Century Competencies. Student Care Centres also work with community partners to offer enrichment in areas, such as reading, speech and drama, creative writing, music, or explorations in science, engineering and technology. After the subsidies from the Ministry of Social and Family Development’s Student Care Fee Assistance programme, lower-income families can pay as little as $5 per month for the child to attend the Student Care Centres in our primary schools.

At the secondary level, schools provide students with out-of-school opportunities, such as befriending and mentoring by community partners and volunteers, as well as interest-based activities that build peer support and relationships. These are provided free-of-charge to all students in the programme, including students from lower-income households.

In our post-secondary education institutions, out-of-school experiences are woven into their curriculum through internships and other industry-based programmes. These provide students access to industry networks and real-world opportunities to apply their skills and gain hands-on work experiences. Institutions also work with community partners to provide additional support and opportunities beyond the curriculum, including youth befriending, career exploration and mentoring programmes.

Students also have access to overseas exposure opportunities through our educational institutions with financial support for those who need it. MOE will continue to review and strengthen our programmes and partnerships to bring affordable learning opportunities to students from low-income families. We are encouraged that there are active community and corporate partners who run or sponsor suitable programmes which complement school efforts to support our lower-income students. In this way, we build a "we first" society in Singapore and we hope more partners will step forward and participate.

Mr David Hoe.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for her response, in particular, supporting our students that come from lower-income families. I have two supplementary questions.

The first, could MOE share what are the avenues a child from a lower-income family have today, if he or she is interested in learning something that the school does not have provision for? For example, if they would like to learn ukulele, but where can they go to? Because, truth be told, I cannot keep telling my residents and also our young Singaporeans to say, "Go to YouTube and TikTok to learn," when there is a starting fixed cost to it, because their families might not be able to afford.

My second question is, I wonder whether MOE would consider the possibility of expanding the ringfencing of our Edusave, where students are then able to tap on some portions of this to be able to pay for the fixed cost that is required, so that if they want to continue learning via social media platform to learn how to play certain musical instruments, then they can also do that.

I thank the Member for his supplementary questions and for his concern for the lower-income students.

To his first question, I think we would first encourage students to approach their schools and their teachers to explore possible interest groups to be set up in the school. Otherwise, to work with our communities, through our grassroots leaders, to provide for such programmes. And these programmes are not limited to our young students, but also, then, become accessible to lifelong learners across all ages. And to the second suggestion, I think we will continue to look at how to open up access to funds so that our students can access opportunities both in and outside of the classroom.

15 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in relation to the Government’s statement in May 2025 that the Government will provide cost-of-living support for as long as it is needed, what are the factors that determine whether such Government support should continue, given that inflation has moderated, but cost of living anxieties remain elevated.

Mr Speaker, we take a holistic approach to determine Government support for cost of living, taking into consideration factors, such as inflation, economic and labour market conditions, fiscal sustainability as well as the affordability challenges faced by lower- and middle-income households. We recognise that whilst inflation has moderated, Singaporeans are still adjusting to higher price levels.

And that is why we provided additional support for Singaporeans in Budget 2025, including Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers and additional U-Save rebates. Beyond transitional cost-of-living support, we have also strengthened structural social support in housing, healthcare, education and retirement to provide Singaporeans with assurance at every stage of life. We will continue to monitor economic conditions closely and adjust cost-of-living support as necessary. In the longer term, the best way to help Singaporeans is to have broad-based and inclusive real wage growth.

Mr Shawn Loh.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for the explanation. As recently as earlier this week, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) released data that showed that inflation was indeed cooling. But the cost-of-living anxieties have far from abated. We hear this in the voices of our residents. In particular, there are two groups that we hear it quite loudly from: seniors who have retired many years ago as well as households with lower incomes.

To that end, I have three supplementary questions. The first, does the Ministry of Finance (MOF) look beyond hard data into sentiments and anxieties of the population when it comes to cost of living? The second, beyond the aggregate-level data, does MOF or does the Government look at specific target groups that are more vulnerable? And my third, if the answers to the first two questions are yes, would the Government then consider additional forms of support in the coming year, even when inflation cools? For example, building on the success of the SG60 vouchers, would we consider distributing vouchers to a more targeted subset, specifically, the Pioneer Generation as well as blue Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) cardholders, as an example?

Sir, I thank the Member for his supplementary questions.

Essentially, what we do is we look at the circumstances, we look at the different groups, we also look at specific target groups, if needed. So, the first question was whether MOF looks beyond hard data into sentiments and anxiety. The short answer to that is, we have to start, first, with data and if sentiment and anxiety are borne out by the data and there is a real need, then, of course, we will step in to do more.

But if we have a situation where there is anxiety, which is without real basis – and we can understand how that happens, sometimes, where people get concerned because others are talking about it; and then others talk about it, then, you have a general anxiety, but there is no real basis for that anxiety – then, there may not be a need to provide additional support for that. And really, the answer would be to address what is causing that anxiety or that concern.

Then, the second, do we look at target groups? The answer is yes, obviously, we do. And if the Member looks at the various measures, the Member will see that some are targeted at seniors, some are targeted at the lower-income. We introduced climate vouchers, initially, for Housing and Development Board dwellers and then, extended it to private housing.

So, there are different funding for different purposes. Sometimes you look at the demographic group, but sometimes you also look at the social purpose. For example, you may need to provide support for childcare. That is a different thing. So, there is a whole range that we look at.

And will we consider additional forms of support? The Member cited SG60 vouchers and targeted subsets. The SG60 vouchers were because this is our SG60 year. In deciding what to give to mark or commemorate SG60, we thought it would be helpful to give the vouchers because it would help with cost of living but it also gave people options with what to do with it. So, depending on what the circumstances are, we will see.

And then, for targeted subsets, again, the general principle is that we look to need or, sometimes, when we are trying to drive a certain form of behaviour, like when we wanted to encourage people with lifelong learning, we introduced the SkillsFuture credits. So, there is a whole range that we will take into account, including the economic situation.

16 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry tracks data on employee burnout by sector; (b) if so, which sectors have the highest levels of employee burnout leading to higher attrition; and (c) how can the Ministry both alleviate pressures in these sectors and channel jobseekers into areas where there is demand for manpower, while ensuring that working conditions remain sustainable.

Mr Speaker, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) does not systematically collect data on workplace burnout. Notwithstanding this, to encourage employers to monitor the state of their workforce's well-being and address key work stressors, MOM and the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Council, in collaboration with the Institute of Mental Health, Changi General Hospital and the Health Promotion Board, have developed and made available iWorkHealth, a free online psycho-social assessment tool.

Based on anonymised and aggregated data of more than 15,000 employees from employers that took up iWorkHealth in 2024, one in three employees experienced work-related stress or burnout. The proportion has remained relatively stable since iWorkHealth was introduced in 2021. Given that participation in iWorkHealth is voluntary, the sample may not be fully reflective of the overall workforce or at the industry level. MOM and the WSH Council are working with tripartite partners to encourage greater adoption of iWorkHealth so that more employers can better understand their employees' state of mental well-being at work and offer relevant support.

While it is natural to feel overwhelmed at work from time to time, a conducive environment can help workers to reduce or overcome work stress. In addition to iWorkHealth, MOM has implemented a range of measures to promote mental well-being at the workplace. These include the Tripartite Advisory on Mental Health and Well-being at Workplaces, which offers practical guidance to employers and highlights available support measures, including a list of Employee Assistance Programme service providers and their areas of specialisation. Launched by the WSH Council, the Well-being Champions Network also facilitates the exchange of best practices among the participating companies and offers access to resources and training to strengthen workplace mental well-being.

Beyond efforts to promote the health and well-being of employees at the workplace, MOM also supports jobseekers in making informed career decisions. The Career Health SG initiative has been introduced under the SkillsFuture movement, to empower Singaporeans to develop resilient and fulfilling careers and achieve their aspirations through training, on-the-job learning and intentional career moves. The tools and resources available can help jobseekers identify and seize opportunities to enter jobs that are more aligned with their aspirations and preferences, so that they can adopt a more sustainable pace of work and avoid the risk of burnout.

Dr Chen.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his response. I ask the question because I have a hunch on certain sectors that might be experiencing burnout and there could be some initiatives to help the sectors. So, I am very glad that there is iWorkHealth, the Well-being Champions Network and the Tripartite Advisory. I wonder if there are any other initiatives that can be targeted at both the employers and the employees to support mental well-being?

I thank the Member for the question. MOM has worked with a range of partners, such as the WSH Council, to roll out a range of resources to support the companies in strengthening the well-being in the workplace. There are two areas that we can do more.

One initiative will be the Workbook on Workplace Mental Well-being, which supplements the Tripartite Advisory by providing additional and actionable guidance for employers, such as the ready-to-use templates for creating safe spaces for conversations. Another example is the Total Workplace Safety and Health Programme. This particular programme provides the organisations free access to mental well-being workshops.

17 Mr David Hoe asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Police will implement multi-language selection and support for the ScamShield helpline; (b) whether multilingual outreach materials on ScamShield will be made available at community nodes; and (c) if so, what are the roll-out timeline and KPIs.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his question. Today, members of the public who call the ScamShield helpline are first assisted by the Interactive Voice Response System, which provides automated responses for simpler queries in English.

We have also received feedback from many Singaporeans, especially our seniors, who have expressed an interest who do want more language options to be supported. So, I am happy to announce that in 2026, we are currently working on it, and we will enhance in 2026, for the system to allow callers to navigate the Interactive Voice Response System in all four official languages. Currently, however, if the caller chooses to speak to an operator, the operator will converse in the caller's preferred language if the operator is able to, or he can also transfer the call to another available operator who is able to do so.

However, I seek Members' understanding that this is not always possible, such as during peak hours or at night, when there are fewer operators online.

The Police also regularly issue multilingual materials to educate the public on scams and the ScamShield suite of anti-scam resources. For instance, since July, the Police have been disseminating an anti-scam resource guide in all four official languages to households. The resource guide is also being disseminated through community partners and made available through all our Neighbourhood Police Centres and on the ScamShield website.

Mr David Hoe.

Thank you, Mr Speaker and I thank the Minister of State for his response. I am particularly heartened that we will consider four languages for our seniors because this is something that my Clementi residents have reached out to me about. When they called the ScamShield hotline, everything was in English.

I have three specific supplementary questions. The first one, I am heartened to know that it is going to be in 2026, but could we have a specific deadline for when we will we see this rolled out. The second question is, from the interim period from now till then, if our seniors have clarifications whether a particular call is a scam call, could we share what could we do about it for our seniors?

And the last question is a suggestion. Could we consider having a senior mode, because sometimes, they tell me, "David, you talk too fast." So, in the same way, whether a senior mode will allow for them to click a particular number and for that operator to speak slightly slower.

I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. In particular, he is concerned at heart for our seniors.

Indeed, we are working on it, in 2026, this is a suggestion that we recently discussed internally and my guidance to the team is to be earlier rather than later. This is an effort that we are working on in concert with the National Crime Prevention Council. We hope to deliver as soon as possible within 2026.

In terms of what kind of advice we give to our seniors, I think, more importantly, I will refer them to the ScamShield suite of options. We have the website, we have the app as well as the helpline. I think these are important resources. And if indeed, they find the operator on the helpline speaking too quickly, the senior can make a request for the operator to slow down.

18 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the projected demand for childminding services over the three-year pilot period; and (b) how does this compare with current enrolment and waitlist figures across all appointed operators under the ECDA childminding pilot scheme.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his question. The Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) launched a three-year Childminding Pilot for Infants in December 2024 to grow childminding services for infants aged two to 18 months as an additional caregiving option for parents.

Since its launch, the pilot has supported around 50 infants across both childminders' homes and community premises. Parents who have enrolled have shared positive feedback on the dedicated care their infants receive and the convenience, especially since childminders are able to accommodate the parents' caregiving preferences and normally, they are also close by, proximity wise.

We are also encouraged by the growing interest in the pilot, with around 160 families indicating interest to enrol in the next six months and these include infants who are yet to be born.

As the pilot progresses, ECDA will continue to study demand for the pilot and work with operators to meet demand from parents and enhance service delivery. This includes matching families with childminders more efficiently.

Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik.

Thank you, Speaker, and the Minister of State for the response. For the low uptake, is it due to the cost or location or even caregiver's trust? Because as the Minister of State mentioned, there is only 50 as of a three-year period. Also, how is ECDA addressing these barriers?

I have another supplementary which is, will the Ministry consider extending the pilot period or adjusting the model based on early learnings?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. For the numbers, we are assured that 50 infants is a good start. We just launched the pilot in December last year for our three-year pilot. Whether the number can be higher, yes, we are prepared for the number to be higher. Primarily, I think it may be a function of also public awareness that this option exists and that is something that we are working on, to enhance public awareness of this option. Especially in infant care centres, where there is a waitlist in infant care centres, we do offer this childminding as an option for residents to consider. Whether we are exploring extending this pilot, I think we are still in the early days and we are refining it along the way with operators, with feedback from parents, and we will stay open. It is a three-year pilot.

19 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) what is the latest progress on the Jurong Region MRT Line (JRL); (b) when is the earliest possible date for Phase 1 of the JRL to be operational.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in response to the hon Member Mr Ang Wei Neng, as of end August 2025, Jurong Region Line (JRL) Stage 1 is more than 70% complete. We had previously announced that the JRL will open in phases between 2027 and 2029. We will share more details in early 2026 after we reach an important milestone in completion of further civil works on the JRL.

Mr Ang Wei Neng.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. Many of our Nanyang residents do not have walkable assess to the JRL Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station, although four of the JRL stations are located in Nanyang, because three of the stations are located within the Nanyang Technological University. Will the Ministry of Transport (MOT) consider putting in additional bus services to connect my residents from Jurong West Streets 91 and 93 directly to the upcoming Gek Poh MRT station, in tandem with the opening of the new MRT station?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I appreciate the anxiety of Nanyang residents, as expressed by the hon Member. It would be I believe, a matter of time before the JRL is completed and they would see the benefits. As was mentioned by the hon Member, there are four MRT stations that they can access.

At this present moment, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has provided bus services to connect residents to transport nodes and amenities across Jurong region, which includes Nanyang Division. And LTA regularly monitors the travel demand in this region. Through the Bus Connectivity Enhancement Programme, LTA has been improving existing services and introducing new bus services, especially for residents in new estates that are further from existing transport nodes. And we are continually reviewing them as and when the demand is expressed.

A short supplementary question, Mr Ang, a final one.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just to clarify with the Senior Minister of State. My point is that there is no direct bus service now connecting the residents from Jurong West Streets 91 and 93, to the upcoming Gek Poh MRT station. So, when we asked LTA whether they will plan for the new bus service, they said they will wait for the new MRT station to be ready; they will plan for it then. So, my point is that, can we plan for it now, so that the new bus service can be ready, in tandem with opening of the JRL Gek Poh station.

I am grateful to the hon Member for his clarification. May I just point out that the planning parameters apply not just to Nanyang but across Singapore. It was mentioned by the hon Member the Gek Poh MRT station was not completed. So, we really, at the end of the day, plan bus routes in relation to expressed needs and there is a balance to be struck. I hope that the hon Member will be able to explain that to his residents.

20 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will provide greater granularity in reporting employment outcomes of adult learning programmes such as the SkillsFuture Career Transition and Work-Study Programmes including the provision of sectoral breakdowns in growth areas like artificial intelligence, healthcare and social services, so as to assess the effectiveness of these programmes more clearly.

Mr Speaker, the Ministry of Education (MOE) and SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) adopt a variety of quality and outcome metrics to assess the effectiveness of SkillsFuture-funded continuing education and training (CET) programmes.

Employment outcomes, including wage changes and placement rates provide a quantitative measure on the impact of learning, including the industry relevance of skills training. Today, we track and report employment outcomes via administrative data, programme-specific surveys and econometric studies. For example, as of December 2024, about 55% of almost 4,300 trainees who were unemployed at the start of the SkillsFuture Career Transition Programmes found new jobs within six months of course completion.

Last year, the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) published findings from its Work-Study econometric study, showing that Institute of Technical Education (ITE) and polytechnic graduates who upgraded via Work-Study Programmes enjoyed wage premiums of around 6% to 11%, compared to those who transited straight into employment. Every year, the polytechnics and ITE also administer the Work-Study Programme Outcomes Survey to work-study graduates. The findings are generally positive, with more than 90% of trainees employed and enjoying higher median salaries, compared to at the start of the training.

We will review the Member's suggestion on how better to report employment outcomes to guide individuals' training decisions. Where the studies are conclusive, such as the MTI's econometric studies, we have published them. A more granular breakdown by sector is not always possible due to sample size limitations. Some programmes also equip learners with horizontal skills, such as data analytics and artificial intelligence-related skills, that can be applied to job roles across multiple sectors.

Further, wage and employment outcomes do not tell us the full picture. For example, reskilling could have helped workers, who are at risk of displacement, keep their jobs, or take on new job roles in a growth sector, albeit with an initial pay cut. Some workers might also learn new skills in anticipation of new or upcoming requirements, for example, an automotive mechanic learning how to maintain electric vehicles. In such cases, wage effects may be hard to quantify. Therefore, MOE and SSG take a broader view of the impact of the SkillsFuture movement.

To complement the employment outcomes reporting, SSG administers the Training Quality and Outcomes Measure (TRAQOM) survey to learners who take up SSG-funded programmes to rate the programme quality and perceived outcomes. This includes whether the training has helped them to be more effective at their jobs, improve their work performance or allow them to take on enhanced responsibilities at work. The TRAQOM ratings of each course are published on MySkillsFuture portal and guide learners on suitable training programmes.

Other than employment outcomes, SSG also studies job posting data to monitor how job roles and skills needs of the labour market are evolving. Such jobs-skills insights are published regularly to inform the training market. For example, SSG's annual Skills Demand for the Future Economy report highlights changes to the in-demand skills in the digital, care and green economies. SSG also makes available jobs-skills tools and resources under the Jobs-Skills Portal to help companies and training providers focus on building up relevant skills for their workers and trainees.

Dr Hamid Razak.

Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the detailed reply. I am coming from an angle of providing information in terms of sectors so that both learners and employers can then know which sectors actually provide better career transitions. So, I am wondering if the Ministry will be able to look at, perhaps, for the sectors that have higher sample sizes, what the outcomes are, in terms of the current matrices that the Ministry is already tracking and publishing.

Mr Speaker, I thank Dr Hamid Razak for the suggestion. Indeed, we will continue to study the variety of means through which we can help the learners, the employers and also the training providers make the correct choices, in terms of the courses that the learners select to go on, creating opportunities, the opportunities created by employers, and the training providers that need to then develop capacity in order to then provide the training for the learners. So, we do need to make this information available.

As I have explained, the outcomes are not so simple because some of them are distant in the future, some of them are stackable on top of each other. But we have to track all of these and think through how we can best provide the information; and how we can then guide the learners and the workers as well as the employers and the training providers, in order to think of the future capacity and the future opportunity.

It is not so straightforward. As I have explained, we have to think about wage outcomes and job placements but also job roles. And some of it is also a consideration of then what would have happened, the counterfactual, the worker who was not displaced but stayed in the job role or transited to another domain and potentially took a pay cut, but that was the counterfactual to losing the job entirely.

So, we have to think through how we present the data in a way that informs learners, employers and training providers in helping them make decisions about SkillsFuture's future.

I was trying to squeeze in one more Parliamentary Question (PQ), but time is up.

As Members would have noticed, I have generally confined supplementary questions only to Members who have filed PQs. I do make exceptions from time to time. But I am doing this in the interest of trying to clear as many PQs as possible. Today, we barely cleared 20 PQs. So, I ask for Members' indulgence and understanding.

Order. End of Question Time. Introduction of Government Bill. Minister for Law.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]

[(proc text) "to amend the Electronic Transactions Act 2010, the Singapore Land Authority Act 2001 and the Housing and Development Act 1959 to provide for the carrying out of conveyancing transactions using electronic means, to make amendments to the Mental Capacity Act 2008 and the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act 2021 relating to the remote witnessing of the execution of an electronic instrument to confer powers of a lasting power of attorney, and to make amendments to the Housing and Development Act 1959 relating to the Housing and Development Board's common seal", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Murali Pillai), on behalf of the Minister for Law, read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Order read for the Resumption of Debate on Question [22 September 2025]. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to: (proc text)]

[(proc text) 'We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the First Session of this Parliament.'." – [Mr Sharael Taha] (proc text)]

[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]

Mr Alex Yam.

I rise to support the Motion of Thanks to the President. In Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): Today, I wish to borrow an old saying from Chinese history to reflect on Singapore's future: "In the land of Shu, there were no great generals, so Liao Hua had to serve as the vanguard." This saying is not just a historical reference – it serves as a stark warning for us today.

This phrase comes from the period of the Three Kingdoms. In its later years, the Kingdom of Shu faced a severe shortage of talent. Zhuge Liang had passed away, and Jiang Wei was struggling to hold things together. Eventually, with limited military strength, Shu had to appoint Liao Hua – an ageing and less capable officer – as its vanguard. Later generations lamented: when a nation or team lacks capable people, it will have no one to turn to at critical moments.

Although the original saying carries a tone of irony and helplessness, we should treat it today as a wake-up call. If a country fails to continually nurture talent and establish a robust leadership succession system, it risks being unprepared when crisis strikes.

Singapore must never repeat such a mistake.

The current state of the world is deeply concerning – recurring political violence in the United States, severely testing its democratic system; continuous disputes between left and right wings in Europe; frequent changes in leadership in Japan and South Korea, leading to a lack of policy continuity and stability; major electoral recalls and social divisions in Taiwan, severely damaging trust between the government and the people; ongoing political disputes following elections in several Southeast Asian countries; endless conflicts in the Middle East and the Russo-Ukrainian war, with peace nowhere in sight. All of this reminds us – political stability is not inevitable; it is a fragile asset that can easily be lost.

In stark contrast, Singapore stands out. We have just completed a smooth, stable and mature leadership transition. The Prime Minister has changed, but policies remain consistent; the nation's direction continues and public confidence remains strong.

Amid global turmoil, Singapore's institutions, culture and mutual trust have forged this hard-won stability. This is our advantage and also our responsibility.

The President emphasised the importance of unity in his address, a point that I believe is crucial.

The political atmosphere is like the air we breathe; fresh air goes unnoticed and unappreciated, but once it lacks harmony and becomes polluted, everyone feels suffocated. The concept of "harmony" or "hé", as advocated by Confucius, signifies a genuine, principled harmony, and not soulless, superficial conformity. This "hé" refers to harmonious and dedicated efforts towards the common, supreme goal of national development and the people's welfare. We must maintain a high degree of consensus on this major objective. This is the foundation upon which we can pool our strengths and accomplish great things. This is the "harmony of the gentleman", a unity stemming from shared ideals and beliefs.

In this Parliament, we encourage constructive debate. However, if the purpose is to deliberately create confrontation for political gain, while disregarding the overall national development, this closely resembles what Confucius criticised as "conformity without harmony". This is why the President and the Prime Minister have repeatedly reminded us that true democracy is not "me first," but "we first." This is the most valuable aspect of Singapore's political culture.

The greatest challenge the world faces today is not economic or military – it is the crisis of social cohesion. Individualism and a "me first" mindset are eroding the foundations of many societies. Singapore must choose a different path. To build a “we first” society, politically, all parties must prioritise the national interest, transcending partisan disputes. In policy, people should not only ask, "What is in it for me?" but also, "Is this fair for our society?" In daily life, we must care for one another, leaving no one behind.

The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) has a special role to play in this. I believe the Ministry should lead this paradigm shift from "me" to "we", redefining our social compact through three key areas.

Community building must go beyond festive events and occasional activities. We need to establish deep community connectivity programmes, encouraging residents to not only to know each other as neighbours, but to become mutual support systems; develop Community Shared Spaces 2.0 – transforming them into real living labs, not just physical spaces; and create intergenerational collaboration projects, bringing the young and old together to solve community problems, facilitating the exchange of wisdom and innovation.

MCCY should lead this effort, shifting community building from activity-based projects to building a relational ecosystem.

We need not merely law-abiding citizens, but community members who actively contribute. This requires redesigning national education to emphasise that citizens are not only rights-bearers, but also responsibility-takers; developing a grassroots community service framework so that volunteerism becomes a part of life, not just an occasional activity; and creating multicultural competency programmes to equip Singaporeans with the skills to thrive in a diverse society.

Here, I must place special emphasis on the crucial role of the younger generation. The hope and impetus for building a "we first" society lie with our youth. They are not just future successors; they are a vital force in shaping the social fabric of the present.

Young people are intellectually active, full of ideals, and possess a natural affinity for fairness, justice and sustainable development. We must create greater space for them, closely integrating their energy and creativity with our shared vision for the future.

Specifically, first, we must genuinely listen to and trust our youth. Our engagement cannot be merely symbolic. We must substantively incorporate their ideas into policy considerations. When formulating long-term plans, the voices of young people must be heard and their suggestions should have the opportunity to be translated into concrete actions.

Second, we must empower our youth to be the protagonists of community innovation. MCCY should support young people in independently launching projects that solve community problems, enabling their transition from being passive recipients of policy to active co-creators. This hands-on experience in building is the most effective way to foster a sense of ownership and belonging to the nation.

Third, we must build solid bridges for intergenerational collaboration.

A "we first" society requires understanding and continuity between generations. We should encourage the formation of mentorship groups, pairing youth with experienced seniors to jointly plan community projects. The combined experience and wisdom of the older generation with the drive and fresh perspectives of the young can create powerful synergies, ensuring both societal stability and vitality. Furthermore, in this age of fragmentation, we need common stories and shared memories more than ever: support projects that document and share "Singapore Stories," focusing not only on national achievements, but also on the contributions of ordinary people, particularly stories of how the younger generation actively participates in and transforms communities.

Develop community archives and digital platforms, allowing every community to preserve and share its history, and enabling youth to become a new force in recording and disseminating these stories. Create arts and cultural programmes that explore the evolving meaning of being Singaporean, encouraging young artists to interpret and enrich our shared identity from contemporary perspectives.

These efforts, particularly through activating the proactive participation of our youth, will help us build a society that shares not just a common geographical space, but a profound sense of shared destiny.

We must return to the saying with which I began: "In the land of Shu, there were no great generals." It reminds us: to build a "we first" society, we must continuously nurture successors and encourage more young people to enter public service. We cannot rely only on a small elite – we must build a strong pipeline of talent, ensuring that there are always capable people ready to serve.

Mr Speaker, Singapore may be small, but we can be bold, visionary and responsible. Building a "we first" society is not a Government programme – it is a national endeavour. It requires the participation and commitment of every Singaporean. Let us also cherish our hard-earned political stability and protect this valuable asset. Let us work together to maintain Singapore's precious political environment, ensure our political atmosphere remains clean, and enable future generations to grow up in a more united and prosperous Singapore. I support the motion.

Mr Xie Yao Quan.

Sir, I stand in support of the Motion. In Malay, please.

(In Malay): It has been an honour for me to serve the Jurong Central constituents over the past five years, and to be given the opportunity to serve the Jurong Central community once again. Over these five years, there are so many residents who I now consider friends.

So, to my friends and all residents, I wish to say, the President's speech at the Opening of Parliament reminds us that there is still much more that the Government, together with our people, must do. And in Singapore, the Government is deeply committed to working together, to do more, and to make life better.

Similarly, we want to provide the best opportunities for our children to develop and reach the peak of their God-given talents and potential. To support everyone in raising our children to be honest citizens and people of faith, to celebrate and cultivate our traditional languages and cultural arts, and to develop our society into one that is stronger, more united, more caring and more excellent.

We will do all this within our meritocracy. Our meritocracy is not perfect. It may never be perfect, but it remains a vital principle for social harmony and for achieving success as one people. For years, in fact, for decades, we have built and developed our meritocracy. And we must continue to do so, to ensure that our meritocracy continues to work for everyone and makes life better for all our people.

Above all, I wish to remind everyone that in any meritocracy, at any time, there may be some who will be ahead, and some who may be behind. But there will be progress for everyone. Everyone must be on this "Escalator of Progress". Everyone moves forward together to ensure this meritocracy works.

The President used the word "escalator" in his speech. This word was deliberately chosen.

As we continue to work on our meritocracy to make it work ever better for everyone, we must first put everyone on that same "Escalator of Progress", and we must ensure that this escalator is always moving towards progress. The Government must ensure this escalator is always moving towards progress, for everyone. It is crucial for us to ensure the success of this meritocracy, and it becomes the fundamental condition for improving our meritocracy.

May I end my speech with a Malay quatrain:

Jasmines bloom where butterflies play

Jellyfish together swimming away

Through life and death we stay together

Our meritocracy lasts forever

Let us continue to move forward together on the "Escalator of Progress"!

(In Mandarin): In 2011, my Parliamentary colleague, Ms Sim Ann, delivered a brilliant speech on Singapore's "haves and have-nots". She used a more relaxed, colloquial approach to discuss, in depth, a very important issue: what strategic advantages and opportunities Singapore possesses, what conditions and trade-offs we lack, and how Singapore should forge a path forward from this position.

At that time, I had not yet entered politics, she had just entered politics, and Singapore was 46 years old.

Today, on the occasion of Singapore's 60th anniversary, I want to revisit Singapore's "haves and have-nots" and discuss our nation's future path. What does Singapore have, and what does it not have? Let me raise three points.

Firstly, Singapore has a rapidly ageing population, with more and more elderly people. Singapore's achievements today are all due to the foundation laid by the Pioneer and Merdeka generations. Without the dedication, sacrifice and contributions of these people, there would be no glorious Singapore today. So we have an obligation to give back to them. Families, communities and the Government must all work together to better care for and support our elderly, to enable them to shine brightly in their golden years.

How should we do this? I have several suggestions, continue to expand and enhance our healthcare system.

Ideally, our elderly would not need to see doctors or seek medical care, but when they do need medical care, the elderly must be able to receive timely service without waiting too long. Therefore, we must continue to expand and enhance our healthcare system.

But we must also continue to manage healthcare costs well. Currently, one MRI scan costs $600, with a Government subsidy of $300, the elderly need to pay $300 themselves. Sometimes when their annual MediSave limit is reached, the elderly must pay the $300 in cash. The same applies to chronic diseases – the annual MediSave limit of $400 to $700 is often quickly exhausted. Hence, the elderly face too heavy a cash burden in dealing with healthcare costs.

Of course, there is no such thing as a free lunch – healthcare costs ultimately needs to be paid by Singaporeans. If we want higher healthcare subsidies, the Government may inevitably have to collect higher taxes, so I hope the Government can continue to govern wisely and maintain the political courage and responsibility to do what must be done.

The elderly should also have better retirement security. Better retirement security requires not only more resource investment, but also better resource allocation. I again call on the Government to review the eligibility criteria framework for the various benefits distributed to the elderly. Currently, when children do not live with the elderly, the elderly can receive many benefits, but when children live with the elderly, they cannot get as much. Therefore, the entire eligibility criteria framework for Government benefits to the elderly could be more reasonable.

What else does Singapore have and not have?

Secondly, in terms of economic development, Singapore has no time to slack off or relax. In this era of endless technological innovation, where regional countries are rising and using technology to develop rapidly, standing still means being left behind. Singapore cannot be content with standing still. Singapore must forge ahead courageously. We have no natural resources, only people, manpower and talent, so everyone must continue to strive and fight.

"Those who dare to fight will win." We must work very hard. Of course, some people say Singapore is under too much pressure and moving too fast. I believe we must strive hard, whilst also creating space to take care of ourselves and our loved ones around us. We want harmony between the two, not “either/or”.

How can we achieve work-life harmony? Pursue what you love, do what you are passionate about. When a person engages in their interests and does what they love, work naturally becomes not just work, but part of life. I hope the Government can increase efforts to support Singaporeans in pursuing their interests, passions and dreams at all stages of life, including entrepreneurship.

Additionally, flexible work arrangements must become the new normal in our economy and workplace. Our workforce is of high quality, and Singaporeans are capable, so if Singaporeans can have greater space to choose when, where and how to do their work well, we can certainly do good work whilst also achieving better harmony with life. I hope the Government can continue to promote flexible work arrangements and work more closely with employers, not only supporting employers in adjusting their operating models, but also helping employers change their mindset. Furthermore, our entire workforce must better embrace technology, make good use of technology and integrate technology into every position in the economy.

We have no time to slack off, no room to relax, we must fight, but we absolutely cannot rely on ourselves to fight blindly in the same place. Instead, we must rely on technology to help us fight, to fight for us. Let technology be by our side, become our most effective tools and weapons, and fight alongside us to achieve possibilities that, perhaps, even we ourselves cannot yet imagine. This is the potential brought by the integration of humans and technology, and it is also one of our nation's greatest opportunities in continued economic transformation.

Besides the pressure being too great and the pace being too fast, more and more Singaporeans are also saying: “it is not that I do not want to fight or work, but I cannot find work, cannot find employers who want to hire me.” Moreover, it is not just middle-aged workers facing this concern – perhaps more and more young graduates entering the workforce are also facing this concern. Unemployment, career changes, repeated rejections – these challenges faced by our workers deeply affect their daily living, and even their dignity.

And in an era of rapid economic transformation and re-transformation, these challenges will become increasingly frequent. We must better empathise with workers and support them with greater effort and more comprehensive systems. Helping workers find employment and change careers must become one of our major social safety nets.

(In English): Job-seeking, job matching support has to become one of our key pillars, going forward, for our social security and a new major social safety net.

(In Mandarin): We must also further reform our education system, to better nurture the next generation of workforce, to thrive in the new economic era. Besides learning how to do things from a young age, what our children need more is to learn how to behave properly from a young age. For our education system to successfully achieve this, besides continuing to reform the system, we must also reform everyone's mindset and definition of success.

What else does Singapore have and not have?

Third, Singapore has an increasingly diverse society. It also faces greater risks of social division and fragmentation. In an information age, truth and falsehood become increasingly difficult to tell. Hence, in resisting foreign interference and in promoting mutual understanding and trust domestically, we must do better and go deeper.

What else does Singapore have and not have?

Overall, Singapore has a rapidly ageing population, but also opportunities to better care for the elderly. In terms of economic development, Singapore has no time to slack off and no room to relax, but we have opportunities to integrate with technology, and opportunities to deeply reform our labour system and education system.

Singapore has an increasingly diverse society, but also stronger national identity, stronger social cohesion and resilience.

For 60 years since independence, we have achievements, but we must also have gratitude and humility, and even more importantly, we must not be content with the status quo and must strive for excellence. We have challenges, but we should also have confidence. We have no reason to feel dejected or discouraged. Different from the early days of independence, many of our current challenges have no other countries' experiences for reference, no other countries' precedents to rely on. Many of our current challenges have no answer sheets.

But we have a good Government with far-sighted vision and strategic planning. We have people, united as one. I firmly believe that as long as the Government, the people, and both ruling and opposition parties work together, there is no battle Singapore cannot win. We have strategy, resources, and even more importantly, determination, courage and capability. We will certainly be able to build on the past and open up the future, continue writing Singapore's nation-building miracle, and open a new chapter in Singapore's brilliant future!

Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Speaker, I wish to thank the voters of Aljunied group representation constituency (GRC), including those in Bedok Reservoir-Punggol division, for giving my teammates and I in the Workers' Party (WP) an opportunity to serve them again. We know that each vote was a carefully considered decision and we do not hold that lightly. We are committed to honouring your trust by working tirelessly to earn your votes again in the coming years.

Mr Speaker, in his speech at the Opening of Parliament, the President spoke of the need to resist self-perpetuating inequality. This message was echoed by the Prime Minister yesterday, who pointed out how other societies have become increasingly stratified, with privilege becoming more entrenched. I share this deep concern.

While it is reassuring that income inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient, is declining, the Gini coefficient does not measure wealth inequality. This refers to the unequal distribution of assets like property, stocks, bonds and savings. If left unchecked, widening inequality can fracture our social compact and undermine the meritocratic system that has been the key to our nation's prosperity.

Meritocracy, in turn, relies on the public's confidence that it can deliver upward social mobility. A waning of that confidence could lead to distrust, both between different segments of society and with the Government, making it harder to forge the consensus required to navigate systemic challenges.

Inequality is, therefore, a fundamental faultline in our in our society. Narrowing this divide demands the same level of attention, resources and effort that we have dedicated to maintaining racial and religious harmony.

Confronting inequality requires more than just giving everyone the same opportunities in school, as even when public goods are equally available, private advantages remain unequally distributed. Wealth is frequently passed down from parents to children, not only through inheritances, but a combination of social, informational and financial capital from the time they were born until deep into their adulthood. This provides children of privilege the best opportunities to thrive at every stage of their lives, and a strong safety net to catch them if they fall.

These translate into a significant and enduring head start in life. They are subtle and unspoken, but they compound over time.

For a start, well-resource parents cultivate cultural capital by providing a wide range of enriching experiences to their children. This includes frequent overseas travel and exposure to the arts, which build an understanding of cultural norms in influential circles, and provides a foundation for sophisticated conversations in social and professional settings.

Etiquette lessons and public speaking from a young age equip their children with the confidence highly-valued in the workplace and in leadership roles. These parents have the resources to send their children for enrichment camps in areas, like artificial intelligence (AI), coding and robotics. They know that these courses build competence from a young age in science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM), a skillset that generally commands higher salaries in future careers.

This hands-on experience beyond what is taught in textbooks can spark interest and give an indirect boost to academic performance. The Direct School Admission (DSA) scheme offers an alternative route to top schools based on students' non-academic talents. For parents with resources, hiring top coaches to provide individual training on technique and fitness gives their children a significant head start.

This allows them to become high-performance athletes before their peers, giving them a distinct advantage during school trials. Furthermore, if their child does not do well in enough in local exams, their parents have the option of sending them to private schools, locally and overseas. This additional safety net ensures that a pathway to higher education is always available, a luxury that less-affluent families cannot afford.

As these young adults enter the workforce, their accumulated social capital continues to open doors. Some might lend prized internships at multinational corporations through their parents' professional networks, bypassing traditional hiring procedures. Likewise, a parent might introduce their child to an influential business contact who can give them their first professional role or provide helpful career tips. These relationships create an oft hidden job market, leading to opportunities that are not publicly advertised.

This safety net extends into significant housing and financial advantages. For instance, some well-to-do parents buy property for their children when they are still young to hedge against rising prices, ensuring they would not have to struggle to afford their first home when they get married. Others hand over their successful businesses to their children after they graduate, removing the need for them to compete with their peers in the in the job market.

To be clear, the actions of these parents are perfectly legal. They are simply doing their best to help their children in a very competitive economy, but this creates a growing chasm between those with and without these advantages. This divide will only widen as economic competition intensifies and the nature of entry-level jobs shift to AI, which demands new skills that are more accessible to the privileged.

Our challenge, then, is to bridge this gap, not by suppressing the privileged, but by levelling up everyone else. To do this, we must bolster our public institutions until they rival the private sphere, ensuring every child has the opportunity to achieve their maximal potential. I have a few suggestions in this respect.

The SkillsFuture Credit scheme has empowered adults to upskill, but the race for skills and opportunities begins much earlier in life. To truly level the playing field, I propose a junior SkillsFuture Credit scheme. This initiative would provide a dedicated skills development credit to all Singaporean children below 18 from households in the lower 40th percentile income bracket. This credit could be used for approved enrichment courses in areas, like coding, public speaking, sports and the arts.

By democratising access to the same hard and soft skills that are often the privilege of the affluent, we can ensure every child has a fair chance to build their confidence and competence from a young age. I have noted Minister of State Jasmine Lau's earlier response today to Mr David Hoe, who made a similar proposal in his Parliamentary Question (PQ). I am glad we are on the same wavelength here.

I acknowledge that schools have many in-school and out-of-school extracurricular opportunities for students, including those from low-income families. These should certainly continue. What I am asking for is a separate credit that gives parents and children the agency to choose enrichment programmes that are not available in their schools.

In today's economy, we cannot precisely predict the skills that will be in demand, or the specific passions and interests that will ignite in our young people. Therefore, by giving parents and children the autonomy and agency to choose enrichment courses, we are empowering them to explore a diverse range of opportunities and build skills in emerging areas, just as well-resourced families can.

This SG Culture Pass, which provides credits for citizens to attend arts and heritage events, is a commendable initiative. However, I am concerned that its take-up rate may be low among households from the lower-income brackets. To ensure that all citizens can benefit, the National Arts Council (NAC) would need to strengthen its outreach efforts to publicise the pass across all segments of society and address the unique challenges faced by these lower-income families, such as competing financial priorities, time constraints and the hidden cost of attendance.

We should establish a Global Horizons Fund to provide financial support for international student exchanges, internships and volunteer trips. Democratising the global exposure that is a key component of cultural capital.

The Singapore International Foundation (SIF) would be a natural partner to manage this fund, as its mission already aligns with connecting Singaporeans with global communities. Through SIF, donations for the fund could be sought from philanthropic foundations, corporate sponsors and individuals who have benefited from such international exposure. To match up the college preparation provided to higher-income students, education and career guidance services in schools could be enhanced and personalised. These services could offer comprehensive support to guide students from less-privileged backgrounds through the complex application process for local and foreign universities.

Critically, this service would make them aware of the importance of building up a competitive portfolio early and will help them strategically utilise financial support programmes designed to help them do so. At the same time, our local universities should continue to monitor their admissions process to ensure that donations do not impact how students are admitted, a problem which has occurred in other countries.

Existing professional mentorship schemes could be expanded to the National Career Mentorship programme for all young Singaporean professionals, tradespersons and workers seeking career guidance and professional networks. Crucially, this programme must conduct proactive and targeted outreach to individuals from less-privileged backgrounds who may lack the social and informational capital to access these opportunities.

To attract and retain committed mentors, the programme could offer public recognition and award continuing professional development hours. These incentives will not only reward their time but also formalise their commitment to guiding young people from all backgrounds, thus helping them to build a more equitable professional landscape.

To level up the advantage of wealthy parents providing seed capital or passing on their businesses to their children, Enterprise Singapore should adjust the Startup SG Founder Programme. The programme's recent shift to a one-to-one co-matching ratio presents a financial barrier for first-time entrepreneurs who lack personal savings or family wealth. It makes funding less accessible and favours those who are already financially well off. I urge Enterprise Singapore to revert to the previous one-to-four co-matching ratio. This would make crucial seed funding more accessible, ensuring that promising ideas are judged on their merit alone without a founder's financial means becoming an obstacle.

Sir, all these programmes can only make a national impact if they are able to reach and assist a wide section of society. The various agencies running these programmes should redouble efforts to publicise their programmes on social media and traditional advertising platforms and partners with schools, interest groups, grassroots organisations, including those linked with the opposition, to encourage participation from Singaporeans from less privileged backgrounds.

Sir, while our journey as a nation has been a remarkable one, the true measure of our success lies not in the peaks of our wealth, but in the enduring opportunities we provide to all citizens.

The proposals I have outlined today are not designed to penalise success, but to strengthen our meritocratic system, ensuring that every citizen, regardless of their family's background, has a fair shot at success. By giving every Singaporean access to the exclusive advantages that provide a head start in life, we can create a powerful equalising force, offering a clear pathway to upward mobility and a robust safety net for all.

This is how we can build a society where a child's destiny is not dictated by their birth, but by their grit and hard work. This is how we can assure those who are growing up in difficult circumstances that our society is empowering them every step of the way, and this is how we inspire the next generation to give their all for their families and the progress of our nation. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.

Mr David Hoe.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand today in support of the Motion to thank President Tharman for his address, and to air the voices and concerns of Singaporeans.

It is their aspirations, struggles and daily lives that form the very foundation of my presence here today, and I believe everyone here today here in this room. And I am also grateful to the residents of Jurong East and Bukit Batok GRC for allowing me to represent them in the 15th Parliament.

Allow me to begin by first saying that I am a product of my experiences, from growing up in a dysfunctional family, having gone through the Normal (Technical) stream, fulfilling my dream of becoming an educator, founder to a few social empowerment programmes and today, a husband and a father of two beloved children. All these experiences have shaped my worldview.

But they are not the only ones. Today, I am very fortunate to be able to represent Clementi residents and people from all walks of life and these experiences will surely influence what I will say, do inside and outside of this House.

But for now, let me to share a few thoughts on being "we first" society. Underlying the idea of a "we first" society, it is no one gets left behind. I have some thoughts on what it means to build an inclusive society, which I will continue to develop as I go along in my term and as I grow into my role as a Member of Parliament (MP).

Most of us have heard this countless number of times, that we should all have our own definition of success. And this personal definition matters, because they guide our aspirations in life.

But while having this definition of success is important, today, I want to spotlight on how can ensure that we have the sufficient building blocks to help Singaporeans to not only define but also to realise their own definition of success. Specifically, I will look into three groups – our young, our families and our seniors.

Let me first begin with our young. In 2024, the average monthly household income of the bottom 20%, or B20 households was under $4,500, according to the Department of Statistics. A beginner robotics class, guitar class or speech and drama class today would easily us $200-$300 a month.

Exposure to such classes and lessons are important because they help our children to explore their interests beyond a typical school setting. From these interests, with time and practice, they grow into strengths and from these strengths, they grow into definition of success.

But these activities are out of reach to children whose families cannot even afford such lessons. And it pains me when I learnt that such opportunities depend on family income, because if I truly want every single child to be able to define their own version of success, then should not access to such experiences not be a privilege but a given?

This is why I propose the idea of "curiosity credits". This is a scheme where every single child has credits that they can draw upon to explore new opportunities, be it in arts, sports, technology, or any other fields. The goal, really, is to nurture curiosity. It is to help children to be able to recognise their strengths and interests and perhaps, ignite a spark that could guide them in their lifelong journey. Curiosity credits, what is this?

Think of this similar to SkillsFuture, but SkillsFuture for our young. Just as SkillsFuture encourages adults to upskill and pursue lifelong learning, curiosity credits would give our children a structured but flexible way to explore, experiment and build confidence in their formative years.

Importantly, I must say this. Curiosity credits should and must be means-tested, so that families who need the most support can draw on these credits, because curiosity credits can help close a starting gap in life, by giving children that come from less advantaged background a means to access opportunities that they otherwise cannot have access to. To be clear, we already have a wide range of policies and programmes to support our young, but what I am proposing is we can do more.

A Child Development Account in our early years helps to defray preschool and healthcare expenses. But it does not allow that very child to explore enrichment classes that are beyond the preschool setting.

Let us move on to Edusave. Likewise, you cannot tap on your Edusave account to pay for a dance lesson at our Community Centre, or even a robotics class at a private provider. So, my point is this. Curiosity credits can bridge opportunity gaps early, ensuring that every child, regardless of their background, has the foundation to shape his/her own definition of success. But while curiosity credits can help children discover their passions, this alone is not enough in shaping the outlook of success.

Today, the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) still remains the main gateway to secondary school. I urge the Ministry of Education (MOE) to consider broadening entry pathways to secondary schools. By moving beyond a single examination as the necessary condition, which is PSLE, we can redefine success more broadly as a society and allow children with different strengths to thrive.

As MOE itself has said in April 2025 in an online primer, they said, I quote: "The future of Singapore’s education system is not just about choosing to keep or eliminate PSLE." I agree. "It is about how we can customise learning pathways to meet diverse abilities, needs, interests and aspirations of future generations. It is about how we can embrace learning beyond schools and books and help students discover the joy of learning to lay the foundations for self-motivated, lifelong learning."

It is in this spirit, broadening entry pathways is not about removing rigour, but it is about right-siting students in environments where they can flourish. We already see glimpses of this through the DSA, but this remains supplementary to the PSLE rather than a truly parallel route. I urge MOE to continue to pilot or consider piloting new models.

This could take the form of a through-train programme from primary to secondary school, which we heard before, or alternative entry requirements instead of a single high stake at accumulative examinations that have substantial impact on our child's future.

The truth is, even as I say all these, as a former educator, I know the logistical challenges are real. But I also know that if we want to embrace a child-centred model of education, we should and we must find ways to make it work.

Examinations and pathways are just one part of the education system. Let me focus on something else: the learning environment. Because even with the best opportunities, a child cannot pursue his/her own aspirations if their learning environment is not conducive, and bullying has been a pressing concern.

MOE's recent announcement on 27 August regarding its plans to address bullying is timely and praiseworthy. It plans to sharpen school policies, provide more accessible reporting channels and – I like this – cultivate a culture of kindness. All these are important steps.

But on this note we should review our existing frameworks on discipline and consequences for bullying. Current measures today range from warning, counselling and suspension to more serious sanctions. These have their place, but we must ask a fundamental question: how effective are they in changing behaviour and preventing repeated harmful acts?

Take suspension, for example, which I mentioned two days ago. Previously, suspension was painful, painful because you would not have the ability to interact with your friends because you are not in school, and even if you wanted to head out to play basketball in the daytime, there is no one to play with you. That boredom was real, it is painful.

However, I also said this that if you have access to a mobile phone, because this is what a parent told me, during your suspension, I mentioned you can play Mobile Legend, but you also play Roblox, and suspension is seen as nothing more than just a holiday.

Without a structured approach, the time away from school does not build accountability. In fact, it risks trivialising the harm caused. If a child returns without genuine reflection or remorse, the underlying behaviours may continue and the victim remains unprotected. So, we must find ways to make disciplinary actions more purposeful.

This could mean compelling bullies to remain in school premises, in a separate room, even if they are suspended from class. In their suspension, they are to experience a guided reflection session where they have to confront the impact of their actions, reflect why that was not acceptable and arrive at a resolution.

Creating a safe environment for our children goes beyond tackling bullying. An equally pressing threat that I want to address today is the access to drugs and youth vaping.

I recognise that tackling both issues require a multi-pronged approach. However, I want to highlight, based on what I have heard from different Singaporeans, a key gap in our current reporting mechanisms.

Today, reporting online vaping reporting requires a Singpass login. And to have a Singpass account, you must be at least 15 years old. What this effectively means is that if you are under 15 years old, you cannot make an online report. Many of these children and students who may witness vaping in schools or even around their town neighbourhoods, are 14 years old and below.

With the response by Minister Ong Ye Kung, I am heartened to know that our young are able to call at the Tobacco Regulation Branch to report.

But can I also say this: we must understand our target audience. Today, many youths are less or not comfortable picking up that phone to call and file a report. But ask them to fill up a form, or anything online? They are a lot more comfortable. Also, the hotline operates from 9.00 am to 9.00 pm. This is why I hope the task force can consider making youth-appropriate channels to make reporting easier.

Let me share another recent example someone shared with me recently. On Telegram channel, where you can purchase drugs in Singapore, he asked me, "David, how can I report?" So, David does not know. What David did was – I was not sure, so I called the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB). And follow me; I was told to go to the CNB website, scroll all the way down to e-services, click on feedback and enquiries, and file a report there. I was genuinely puzzled. How is drug reporting the same as general feedback or general enquiries? Furthermore, I tried. No Singpass login was required.

My main point is this. At the end of the day, if we want our children and youths to be able to continue to grow up in a Singapore that is drug-free, then reporting must be accessible and intuitive, beyond just vape or drugs reporting.

Even if you take my recommendation, I wonder whether we can just have a one-stop shop for reporting because today, there are just so many platforms that you can always report things – one service, one form, another form.

From children, I will move on next to our families. Let me first and foremost state the obvious. Every parent wants their child to be born healthy and be healthy. But let me also say that not every parent will always be so fortunate. Because according to a KK Women's and Children's Hospital's press release in October 2024, , they said, and I quote, "even with declining birth rates and advancement in medical care, Singapore has a relatively high premature birth rate".

And also, in the Ministry of Health's (MOH's) response to my PQ yesterday, Singapore's premature birth rate in our restructured hospitals over the last five years has grown from 10% to 11%. In other words, one in every 10 births is premature in our restructured hospitals. This is much higher than our Asian neighbours – Hong Kong at 6.5% and China at 6.9%. It is also in that very same response, my heart sank when I saw this, because MOH's response shared that the average length of a newborn in Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) is between 154 days and 299 days. Many of these preterm babies spend weeks, sometimes months, in hospital. This translates to significant out-of-pocket costs for parents, even when our subsidies kick in. We should consider how to help these parents better.

Truth is, parents of preterm babies will likely exhaust their leave before the child even comes home. And I know this first-hand because my son was born preterm. And yes, this is why I am asking if we could do more for parents of preterm babies because they reached out to me via Instagram after I posted about it before the General Election (GE).

One of the ways is whether we can better support them through stronger workplace arrangements at such sudden and overwhelming moments. Specifically, I wonder if the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) can consider extended or flexible leave provision accorded to parents of preterm babies beyond our current Government paid maternity and paternity leave schemes, which is great. This could take the form of a cap extension tied to the additional number of days that a preterm child spends in NICU, so that no parent has to ever worry about running out of leave before the baby comes home.

Now, supporting parents at the earliest days of a child's life is critical, but you and I know the responsibility does not stop there. As children grow, their needs change. From ensuring care in their first few fragile months of their life, we must also ensure that our children have healthy opportunities to play, stay active, develop holistically and not being glued to their phones.

This is why I turn, now, to the importance of making sports and recreation more accessible. During my house visits, several parents of primary school-going children shared their concerns with me, that in our new Built-To-Order (BTO) estates, and even in my own BTO estate that I live in, we often have playgrounds but know of few sports facilities. Some even noted that their homes were far away from the nearest basketball court and as a result, the easy option is to keep the child at home and let them use the phone.

So, I suggested, I said, "Uncle, Aunty, why not you book the basketball or badminton court in the school compound close to your home under the dual use scheme for your child to use, and spend your ActiveSG credits there while you're at it". Sounds great. But to my surprise, I learned that ActiveSG credits cannot be used for such school facility bookings, even though it is managed by ActiveSG. Instead, for those who wish to book such sports facilities in schools, they have to pay out of their own pocket with a credit card or PayNow.

Small as this might seem, but these last-mile barriers matter, and I urge a review to ensure that access to sports is affordable, simple and holistic. If it requires inter-Ministry coordination, then we must do better. In this regard, I ask whether the Minister of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY), Sports Singapore and MOE should consider ensuring that ActiveSG credits can be used for a broader range of sports facilities, alongside with payment gateways options that are harmonised and inclusive.

Allow me to move on to the third group, which is seniors, who I have grown to love, about how we can help seniors to thrive in the digital world today.

Mr Hoe, you have a minute and a half left. Just to let you know.

While Clementi is home to many young families, a large part of this community is made out of seniors. At a recent community event, I encourage our seniors to embrace technology at their own pace. For some, this is not easy, but I was heartened that they are willing to take the first step forward. But many shared with me their reluctance to go online because of the fear of being scammed.

Allow me to cite an example. I told them that they could dial 1799 for the ScamShield helpline if they were unsure. I tried calling the number myself. Every single thing was in English. That made me pause and I asked myself, who exactly is our target audience? If the major group of this service is our seniors, then should that very first option not be being able to choose your preferred language?

In fact, this is not just about anti-scam tools. It is about the overall direction of our digital Government services. Many websites, apps and hotlines are still mainly in English. ScamShield is just one example, but the principle is broader. If we want our seniors to live confidently in the digital world, then we must make sure our products and services must be designed with them in mind.

In closing, for our children and youths to be able to define and realise their aspirations, for our parents to be able to raise their kids well, and for our seniors to be able to thrive in a changing world, this does not happen by chance. We need to build the building blocks to make them happen. It takes all of us in this House, whether you are a PAP white or a WP blue, whether you are an officeholder or a backbencher, to build and hold these blocks together. My hope is simple – that we may join hands, set aside our differences where we can, and focus on what unites us, the aspiration of our people and the Singapore we want to build for them. I stand in support of the Motion. [Applause.]

Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik.

Mr Speaker, I am here today with deep appreciation to the voters of Sengkang. I am honoured to have served in Sengkang as a volunteer since 2020 and now, as their elected representative. I acknowledge the President's call in his address: "Singapore must also remain a home where the vulnerable amongst us are not only cared for with compassion but also empowered to pursue their hopes and dreams." These words remind us of our fundamental duty to ensure that every Singaporean has the opportunity to thrive.

This year, Singapore celebrates our 60th year of independence. This milestone presents us with a crucial opportunity for reflection and stocktaking. It is a time to assess not only our achievements but also to honestly examine what we can do better. Most importantly, it compels us to address the emerging cracks in our foundation that threaten to leave some of our fellow Singaporeans behind.

Today, I will focus on three areas where we must extend our support: first, extending support in housing through reassessing barriers to entry; second, extending support in rehabilitation beyond punishment and enforcement; and third, extending support in education through more data sharing. While I will confine my comments to these areas for now, I look forward to raising other important issues over the course of this term, in particular, the struggles of the sandwiched generation – young parents juggling work, childcare and rising costs of living.

Mr Speaker, stable housing offers a safe harbour where individuals and families can rest and recharge. During Singapore's nation-building period in the 1960s, home ownership was prioritised as a tool for nation-building, allowing Singaporeans to have a stake in our country's development. This vision continues today.

However, we should be concerned that home ownership has become out of reach, especially for lower-income individuals and families who are unable to afford a place of their own. Many such individuals and families live precariously, in fear of slipping into a situation where they are forced to sell their homes and resort to Government rental flats.

But in recent years, even securing Government rental flats can be a challenge. While we recognise that the Housing and Development Board (HDB) has broadened their criteria for rental flats and do not rely solely on income as the main yardstick, demand often outstrips supply. Even successful applicants endure an average waiting period of five months.

Renting from the open market also poses its own challenges. Parliamentary records from 2024 show that the average rent for HDB 3-room, 4-room and 5-room flats in the open market has increased significantly by about 10% year-on-year in 2023, for example, the median rent of 3-room flats in Sengkang increased by 11% in the fourth quarter of 2023 compared to the same period in 2022. As a result, such individuals and families find themselves torn between increasing rental prices in the open market and long waiting times for public rental flats, additional stressors on top of the absence of stable housing.

I acknowledge that the Government has continuously worked to improve housing access for Singaporeans, including recent pilot projects, such as Single Room Shared Facilities and Joint Singles Scheme Operator-Run. However, more needs to be done to address particular groups disproportionately affected by insufficient housing supply. I will briefly touch on two groups in my speech today.

First, single unwed parents and their children. Parliamentary records from March 2024 reveal that on average, only 46% of requests from single unwed parents to rent a public rental flat have been successful each year. This means that every other single parent – usually young, stressed and limited in options – is denied by the public system, while at their most vulnerable.

Second, individuals who are unable to stay with their family members. HDB has cited availability of housing from family members as grounds for rejecting public rental requests, with a lack of clarity on whether other factors are considered, such as the nature of the relationship with family, particularly where it may be strained or abusive.

Mr Speaker, there are multitudes of reasons why someone might find themselves in desperate situations – relationship breakdowns, overcrowding, divorces and other circumstances often beyond their control. These should not be treated by our public housing system as personal insufficiency. Instead, we must build a system that empowers individuals and families with equal opportunities for safety, stability and self-sufficiency through basic stable housing.

Increasing supply of rental flats and reassessing barriers to entry will be key tasks I aim to speak up about in this term. My proposals include: first, exercising flexibility by always taking applicants' current relationship dynamics with family into consideration before rejecting applications based on availability of housing options with family, and publicly commit to upholding this approach.

Second, expanding the public rental housing market to cater to changing aspirations of Singaporeans. This may include exploring flexible and experimental models, such as introducing a universal buy-back scheme for ageing HDB flats, which can then be rented to Singaporeans at rates between commercial and HDB public rentals, offering larger homes and flexible options for those not ready for long-term leases.

Mr Speaker, I shall now move on to my next point on extending support in rehabilitation for drug abusers. First, I would like to indicate my support for the overall tough anti-drug stance, coupled with strong education and rigorous enforcement in keeping drug prevalence low. According to the 2024 Singapore Health and Lifestyle Survey, the lifetime prevalence of illicit drug use in Singapore was 2.3%, while 12-month prevalence was 0.7%. The prevalence of illicit drug consumption in Singapore was much lower than rates reported in studies from the United States (US), Europe and Australia. Yet, even with these low overall rates, troubling patterns are emerging, particularly among our youths.

In 2024, 54% of new drug abusers were under 30, and the number of those under 20 rose by 38%. This rise should not be treated as merely a law enforcement issue; it is a complex social challenge affecting individuals, families and entire communities. These trends are undeniably driven by curiosity and peer pressure, but there are also deeper structural and psychological factors that contribute to its increase. Behind every statistic is a person grappling with trauma and a family striving to rebuild.

Enforcement alone cannot break the cycle of addiction. Building on existing efforts, we should continue to foster a sustained and rehabilitative approach, one that centres on a community-anchored ecosystem supporting recovery beyond surveillance. This includes better access to counselling, community-fostered mentorship and employment support. Youths who struggle with drug abuse often face significant barriers to successfully reintegrate into society. These include social stigma, employment challenges and weak social support.

It is thus concerning that Singapore's two-year recidivism rate for inmates released from Drug Rehabilitation Centres has climbed to 30.8% for the 2022 cohort, significantly above the 21.3% rate for all offenders. Rehabilitation efforts must focus on better reintegration and breaking the revolving door between prison and society.

The Singapore Prison Service's (SPS') Reintegration Hub and CNB's Supervision 2.0 pilot are promising developments. Hair testing, community supervision sessions, and referrals for housing and employment support are steps in the right direction. As then Minister of State Faishal Ibrahim noted in 2024, hair testing has a longer detection window, allowing reporting frequency to be reduced to once every three months instead of twice weekly under the urine testing regime.

However, more must be done to ensure that recovery is not just monitored but meaningfully supported by ensuring that individuals have a strong support network that helps them rebuild their lives, not just to avoid relapse. To better tailor interventions, CNB's publicly available data on drug abusers should go beyond race and age to include other data such as education level, socio-economic status, mental health history, employment status and housing type. This allows us to grasp the complex patterns driving drug use or design appropriate interventions that truly address individuals' needs. As regard to integration of ex-offender, we recognise that Yellow Ribbon Singapore has made significant strides in supporting them, but more can be done to help ex-offenders reintegrate into the society.

In 2025, The Straits Times reported that while there seems to be more employment opportunities for former offenders after release, other issues, such as, social stigma and personal challenges can affect their retention in those jobs. The career retention rate among former offenders who got jobs with Yellow Ribbon Singapore's help has dropped over the years.

Therefore, we should examine the outcomes of initiatives like the Digital Literacy Masterplan and the Uplifting Employment Credit, including job retention rates and career progression. These metrics will help us understand the effectiveness of our rehabilitation efforts and identify areas for improvement. As we move forward, Yellow Ribbon Singapore should be empowered to play a coordinating role across agencies, ensuring that rehabilitation and reintegration of ex-offenders is holistic, sustained and inclusive.

Mr Speaker, I now turn to extending support in education, particularly calling for a data-driven approach to better identify needs. In 2021, the Centre for Research on Islamic and Malay Affairs (RIMA) published "Dreams Realised, Dreams Deferred: Understanding and Addressing the Racial Gap in Educational Achievement in Singapore." A key point raised was that the Malay students persistently face an education gap. Then Minister for Education, cited two data points that illustrate this disparity.

First, in 2021, he noted that 94% of Malay students who entered Primary 1 in 2009 progressed to post-secondary education, which is lower than the national average of 97%. More recently, in April this year, he referred to Census 2020 data showing that only about 11% of Malay residents aged 25 and above held university degrees, compared to 35% of Chinese and 41% of Indians. MENDAKI's analysis of the same census data further highlighted that Malays accounted for just 4% of all university graduates in 2020.

Mr Speaker, if we look at the historical context, then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong shared in 1999 that in 1998, 1.3% of Malay students dropped out before completing primary or secondary school, with the secondary-level dropout rate at 5.9%. Since then, there has been clear progress. According to recent CNA reporting, fewer than one in 100 students have left secondary school without completing it in the past five years.

While there has clearly been progress in reducing dropout rates, the broader educational attainment gap remains stark. There is therefore a pressing need for more comprehensive research and greater access to disaggregated data. Only then can we understand the full picture where the Malay community stands, how their challenges compare with other groups and what targeted policies are needed to close the gap meaningfully.

Mr Speaker, I call for several data-driven improvements. First, MOE should track university graduation rates annually by ethnicity to better understand educational outcomes across communities. Second, we need detailed breakdown of data to ascertain the percentage of lower-income Malays reaching university, including release of data on Malay undergraduates applying for MENDAKI Tertiary Tuition Fee Subsidy over the past decade. And third, MOE should release data on school dropout rates by income background and ethnicity to identify vulnerable groups requiring additional support. Mr Speaker, allow me to continue my speech in Malay.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, today I have touched on three areas where we need to continue supporting marginalised segments of society.

First, in housing, we need to reassess existing barriers to entry. This will ensure that every family, including unmarried single mothers and individuals who cannot live with their family members, gain access to stable housing.

Therefore, we call for applicants' relationships with their families to also be taken into consideration before their applications are rejected, and to expand the public rental housing market to meet the evolving aspirations of Singaporeans.

Second, in drug rehabilitation, we need an approach that is not merely punishment and enforcement alone. The recidivism rate for inmates released from the Drug Rehabilitation Centre has increased to 30.8% for the 2022 cohort. More worryingly, in 2024, Malay offenders comprised 50% of all drug abusers arrested. We need more detailed data to include education levels, socioeconomic status, mental health history, employment status and housing type. Without these details, we cannot fully understand the complex issues that drive drug use, and will thus face challenges in designing appropriate forms of intervention.

Third, in education, we need broader data sharing to identify community needs more accurately. According to the 2020 Population Census, only about 11% of Malay residents aged 25 and above held university degrees, compared to 35% of Chinese residents and 41% of Indian residents.

To better understand how to increase this percentage, we call for MOE to track and release data on university graduation rates by race, and also to release data on school dropout rates by income background and race.

Here, I want to emphasise that whilst I focus attention on challenges faced by the Malay community, assistance and support should be given to all who need it, regardless of their background. We cannot allow anyone to continue being left behind in the nation's development journey. Our approach is based on principles of social justice and robust data. We want a system that provides equal opportunities to all individuals.

MPs from the WP will strive and continue to work to be a voice for all Singaporeans, including the Malay/Muslim community.

We believe that a strongly supported society will benefit Singapore as a whole. When we help those who are marginalised amongst us, we will together advance all Singaporeans, regardless of their race or background.

(In English): Mr Speaker, I return to the President's address. A Singapore that is home to all of us cannot merely be an aspiration, but an imperative for us to achieve together. The challenges I have outlined today in housing, rehabilitation and education require not just Government action, but a whole-of-society response. They demand not just policy changes but a fundamental commitment to seeing the dignity and potential in every Singaporean.

I assure this House that the problems of those at risk of falling through the cracks, especially but not limited to Malay lower-income households, will be consistently highlighted in Parliament. The WP elected representatives will work tirelessly to be the people's voice and to continue working for all Singaporeans, regardless of race or background.

I believe strongly that when we lift the most vulnerable among us, we lift all of Singapore. When we ensure that every family has stable housing, every person struggling with addiction has a meaningful path to recovery and every student has access to quality education regardless of their background, we strengthen the very fabric of our society. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.

Mr Darryl David.

Mr Speaker, the 15th term of Parliament opens at a pivotal moment in our history. In his Opening address, the President reminded us that the world is entering an era of profound uncertainty, marked by shifting power balances, rapid technological disruptions and new threats to stability.

Unlike other countries, Singapore's survival is based neither on natural resources nor a hinterland, as we have neither. Rather, our greatest resource has always been, and will always remain, our people. Our forefathers have laid the foundations to transform a largely unskilled workforce into one of the most competitive in the world. In the 1960s, less than six in 10 adults were literate; today, our literacy rate is approximately 98%.

As of 2024, almost 65% of our population above age 25 have completed post-secondary education, with approximately 36% of our population above the age 25 holding a university degree, making us amongst countries that have high tertiary attainment. Our students are frequently ranked among the very best internationally in mathematics, science and problem-solving; and our universities are ranked among the best in the world.

Mr Speaker, I list these achievements, not to boast or to be proud, but to make the point that these achievements are neither accidental nor due to a stroke of luck. They are the fruit of deliberate investment in our people. And as we celebrate 60 years of independence, let us remind ourselves that what we do in this term of Government will lay the foundation for the next 40 years, in the lead up to SG100. Education must continue to be one of the most powerful instruments to unlock talent, nurture resilience and inspire Singaporeans into our next chapter.

Mr Speaker, two values or concepts have always anchored me in life. They are relevance and value-add. Simply put, you will be replaced and sidelined if you are irrelevant and do not add value in whatever you do. This is true not only for individuals or professionals, but also for nations, as President Tharman reminded us in his Opening address.

Singapore today stands at a pivotal moment of uncertainty and turbulence. For Singapore to survive and thrive, we must ask ourselves, are we relevant to the rest of the world? How can we as a nation add value to the broader conversations that are happening elsewhere? I spent almost 25 years in the education industry and at present, I am the chief executive officer at an international school, so I firmly believe that education, too, must always be seen through this dual lens of relevance and value-adding.

Everything we do for our students, our workers, our people must equip them with the relevant skills so they can plug into the regional and global economy, and education must value-add to their personal and professional growth journey to the day they become better professionals, better individuals, better citizens of Singapore. We want to prepare Singaporeans, not just for today, but for tomorrow and, in this regard, I will touch on four areas in my speech: education technology (EdTech) and AI in education; enhancing neurodiverse education; holistic education, incorporating emotional and mental wellness; and more pathways for students and adult learners.

An area where relevance and value-add intersect is Edtech. In 2020, MOE has committed to provide every secondary school student a personal learning device (PLD) under the National Digital Literacy programme to nurture future-ready digital learners.

But why stop here? If digital literacy is foundational for the future, then should we not extend this commitment to our primary school students as well? I have spoken on this before in Parliament and I believe that a common tablet-like device preloaded with essential software and learning content that are centrally managed by MOE's Edtech division can be rolled out across primary schools, or we can as a pilot programme, for example.

This initiative is aligned with both our Smart Nation push as well as our National Digital Literacy programme. I would imagine that such a platform could provide every child, every child, regardless of background, with a one stop e-learning gateway. If done at scale, the cost per device would fall significantly and standardisation would ensure that every student, teacher and even parent is working within a consistent, secure and effective digital ecosystem.

Singapore is not alone in pursuing such solutions. In 2024, South Korea announced a similar initiative to launch a multi-billion dollar programme to distribute tablets and AI digital textbooks nationwide to students. Here, I hope that MOE could work closely with the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) and even private sector partners to realise this vision. I said MOE and MDDI, so I am looking at my Ang Mo Kio GRC sister, Minister of State Jasmine Lau, and we should have more conversations over coffee about this.

Mr Speaker, we cannot talk about EdTech without addressing the use of AI in education. AI is already here. It is evolving even as I am speaking right now, and it is shaping how our students learn and how our teachers teach. We cannot ignore the use of AI. When done right, AI is a legitimate tool and a very effective tool to augment teaching and learning, so we need to figure out how to guide its use so our teachers can benefit from it in a responsible manner.

We want AI to amplify learning, not diminish or detract from it. One of my biggest concerns in the use of AI in education is how we can ensure that it does not erode critical thinking and original thought. On the worst-case scenario, having our students cross into plagiarism or ripping off someone else's work unknowingly, because they do not know how to use AI responsibly.

I believe our assessment models need to be redesigned to balance between responsible use of AI and genuine value-add in learning. For instance, assessment can be designed to differentiate between AI-assisted work versus original thought. Students can use AI for research, data gathering, idea generation with interpretation analysis being in the students' own words. By redesigning our assessment methods, we can keep education relevant in the AI-age by ensuring that our students reap genuine benefit and not just replicate what machines do.

On to equality and equity in neurodiverse education. When we first design our education system, we started with ensuring that every child has equal access to opportunities, follows the same school rules and has the same classroom experience. These principles have helped us create common teaching experiences and learning experiences for all students, regardless of their aptitude and disposition.

But as we observe, as we understand our students, especially those who are neurodiverse, then fitting everyone in the same education mould is probably not the best approach. Equity recognises that not all minds work in the same way, and that some students need differentiated approaches to fully engage and thrive. A child who functions differently may need to stand and pace at the back of the classroom to think clearly. Another may need to fidget or twirl an object to focus.

Providing these allowances would not necessarily compromise the integrity of a classroom. On the contrary, these allowances might be the key to create a participative, inclusive learning environment where every child, every child can immerse himself or herself fully in learning. Equality gives every student a place in the classroom. Equity gives every student the support they need to flourish within that classroom.

I believe our goal is to design an education system that is built on the principles of inclusion, not exclusion; and integration, not segregation. So, creating an inclusive classroom requires a mental shift in how we view what participative learning is and how teachers can conduct their lessons. We, thus, need to find a middle ground by combining equality and equity so that we create classrooms that are not only fair, but also nurturing, where every student, every student, regardless of their learning profile, can develop their strengths, contribute meaningfully and reach their full potential. I believe this is how our education system can be relevant to all learners and value-add meaningfully to the learning outcomes of different learners.

Mr Speaker, in today's world, students face a myriad of pressures that are more complex and pervasive than ever before. Academic competition, performance anxiety, comparison culture on social media, personal challenges and so on. We must, thus, equip them with the emotional and mental resilience to thrive, and this is the third topic in my speech.

A step forward in this area is to, perhaps, consider providing students who are in secondary schools and above with holistic support through mandatory counselling and mental wellness services. Why secondary school students and above? Well, because it is typically in the teenage years that many issues and challenges, both mental and emotional, present themselves, and this is where students and parents could use the most help and support.

I have a 17-year-old son and a 14-year-old daughter, and I am sure anyone who has teenage children or has been through the experience of teenage children, will probably sympathise with me here.

It is not enough to just increase the demand on the number of allied educators or make support available on demand. I would like to advocate for a scheme – it is pretty radical, but hear me out – where every student is required to engage with their counsellor, psychologist, therapist or other allied healthcare professional for a minimum number of hours each month, with additional sessions available for those who need more support. This is akin to how it is mandatory for students to go for regular school-based dental and medical healthcare screenings.

After all, let us think about it for a minute. If we believe in physical health screenings to avert more serious medical problems downstream, then why not apply the same principle to mental and emotional health screenings to avert serious problems downstream?

I believe there are multiple benefits to this proposal. Firstly, it normalises help-seeking behaviour and reduces the stigma around mental health. It allows students to work on challenges, such as stress, anxiety, anger or social conflicts, before they escalate into bullying and/or emotional outbursts. We just had a whole session on bullying earlier this week, so my proposal could very well pick up on the anger and the issues that potential students, who might end up bullying others, are struggling with ahead of time.

Second, it integrates holistic pastoral care into the everyday educational experience in school, reinforcing the idea that emotional and mental wellness are as important as academic achievement.

Thirdly, beyond the students themselves, such a system would create meaningful careers for counsellors, therapists, psychologists and other allied healthcare professionals, thus strengthening Singapore's ecosystem of support by facilitating access to these professionals within the community. This proposal is not as radical as it sounds, considering that some companies have in place employee support schemes for employees in high-pressure roles to undergo regular counselling.

So, why should this not be something we can consider extending to a young adult whose formative years are equally crucial? By embedding holistic wellness into education, we are preparing our students not only to succeed academically, but to develop the resilience, empathy and self-awareness they will need to thrive in life.

And my final topic is more pathways for students and adult learners, Mr Speaker. MOE has made commendable progress in expanding post-primary and post-secondary pathways through initiatives, such as the DSA and the Direct Polytechnic Admission. These schemes have opened doors for students with diverse strengths, offering them alternate routes into the next stage of their education. The challenge now is to ensure that these pathways remain relevant and responsive to the needs of a changing world.

While we look at designing better and more holistic education systems for our young, we must not forget about our adult learners and our workforce. In an economy that is becoming more dynamic and evolutionary, it is increasingly essential for us to create a T-shaped workforce that have deep expertise in functional areas, which is the vertical; yet broad enough in perspectives and skills, the horizontal; to collaborate across disciplines.

The combination of depth and breadth will make our workforce adaptable, employable and ready to thrive in a world that values both specialisation and versatility. The key here, Mr Speaker, is employability. This is why MOE must continue closely with MOM, SkillsFuture Singapore and even industry partners to ensure that continuing employment training are aligned with macro market needs. Only by doing so, we will ensure that our learners, whether they are students, who are just leaving school, or adults seeking mid-career transition can remain relevant in their skills and also add value in the future economy.

Mr Speaker, it has often been said that Singapore's only natural resource is our people. Indeed, that has always been true. And today, it is truer than ever. For decades, our progress has been built on the capability, skills, the resilience of Singaporeans. This has enabled us to grow from a vulnerable young nation to a successful and respected one, But success brings about its own challenges.

The higher we climb, the more difficult it is for us to keep innovating, evolving and climbing to the next stage. Yet we must. We must, because the world around us is shifting rapidly. We must ensure that our education continues to produce talent that are well sought after because the relevancy of their skills and how they value-add to the work they do.

Mr Speaker, many years ago I made a speech on the PSLE, where I referred to it as the mother of all exams. I think the Prime Minister was then the Education Minister and he found my comment quite amusing. But I am very heartened by what the Prime Minister has said in his speech yesterday, that focus on aspects of education in Singapore, especially the need to reduce the stakes of single examination. So, while I may not stick to my view, that it is the mother of all exams, Prime Minister, I certainly hope that his comments will be heeded and we review, we review how the PSLE stress, that is brought about by the PSLE, can, perhaps, be better-managed or be better-received by the various stakeholders.

I also wholeheartedly agree with the Prime Minister that, increasingly, in a world of today, what you can do is more important than what paper you have. MOE is the chief architect, Mr Speaker, that shapes our people and our workforce. In this upcoming term of Government, as Chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Education, I look forward to working closely with our MOE leaders, our educators, our industry, our parents and other stakeholders, to ensure that we nurture not only resilient and skilled individuals, but also Singaporeans with the compassion, empathy and imagination to take Singapore to the next level and beyond. Mr Speaker, Sir, I end my speech in firm support of the Motion. [Applause.]

Mr Dennis Tan.

Mr Speaker, I would, first, like to start off by thanking my dear Hougang voters and residents for allowing me, once again, to represent them in this Parliament. In Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, firstly, I would like to thank my dear residents and voters in Hougang for allowing me to represent them in Parliament again.

(In English): Mr Speaker, in his address at the Opening of the 15th Parliament on 5 September 2025, President Tharman Shanmugaratnam spoke on several themes, including enhancing assurance for all Singaporeans, fostering a more compassionate "we first" society, and deepening solidarity, and strengthening our resilience and enhancing sustainable efforts in face of climate challenges. In my speech, I will be touching on issues relating to these themes.

President Tharman spoke of a Singapore where our seniors can age with dignity, purpose and joy. He specifically mentioned that Healthier SG and Age Well SG will help seniors stay healthy in body and mind and provide more choices for independent living. In his National Day Rally in August, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong spoke of the Age Well Neighbourhoods initiative, which would allow for seniors to age in the communities that they are familiar with, and which also aim to deliver assisted living support and services to seniors where they live. Such services include community health posts, access to wellness and social activities, including new activities for both women and men. And for those requiring more assistance, there is also help with daily living activities, such as washing, eating and housekeeping. Such services are currently available in HDB's Community Care Apartments, but in limited estates.

I welcome the provision of such services to our seniors who choose to remain in their own flats in the same neighbourhoods they may have lived in for a long time. Many seniors prefer to continue living in the same neighbourhoods they are familiar with for many years – the familiarity, the neighbourly friendships are important for many seniors.

I do hope that the goals of the Age Well initiative are translated into tangible underground support, including especially through our Active Ageing Centres. I see that the role of our Active Ageing Centres will become even more important. Let me touch on a few areas of concern I have on this.

The Prime Minister had highlighted Toa Payoh's impressive growth in Active Ageing Centres from six to 13 to ensure seniors who do not have to walk far to find a community. In Hougang, we have four Active Ageing Centres within the single member constituency. So, while our centres in Hougang and I am sure elsewhere in Singapore are very much in demand and well-appreciated by many residents who use their services, I do note that the size of the centres is often a limitation to the amount of activities they can organise. Many centres need to make use of the common spaces in the vicinity of their centres, requiring access via Town Councils or the local Residents' Networks.

In light of the new Age Well initiative, I urge MOH to consider increasing resources for all Active Ageing Centres, whether resources for manpower, space or for more activities, so that every senior who wants to participate actively has all the opportunity to do so with less need to wait their turns.

I hope the Government will make greater efforts to allocate a bigger space to our Active Ageing Centres at the onset, or where ground conditions may allow. In this connection, I would like to ask: how does MOH determine the number of residents assigned to each centre? Given the physical limitation of centre spaces, or even manpower shortages, perhaps, it is time to rethink the resident allocation. We may wish to consider reducing the number of residents allocated per centre. This may allow staff to improve outreach, create more meaningful connections with our seniors and enhance the quality of our seniors' time at the centres.

As indicated earlier, Active Ageing Centres may often need to rely on common spaces in our community for their activities due to space constraints. I urge the Government to assist centres to make it easier to book these spaces with other agencies, as well as helping to lower, if not, absorb the costs, if any, of using these premises. Perhaps, MOH can help to coordinate with other agencies and stakeholders in this regard.

I would also like to ask again what is the Government's strategy for reaching residents who are not currently participating in any community activities with the Active Ageing Centres? I have previously called on MOH to study this issue. With the new Age Well initiative. It is even more crucial for MOH to dedicate resources to this critical outreach challenge. There is now a greater imperative to keep more seniors in touch and engaged.

I am keen to understand what percentage of residents the Active Ageing Centres have been unable to engage and how many refuse participation after initial engagement. Does MOH track the reasons for non-engagement and non-participation, or even those who dropped off after initial contact? I hope that MOH will study these issues. While some seniors may have their own active social networks, better outreach will only help to serve more seniors and better enable the new Age Well initiative and the Healthier SG to achieve their stated goals.

Mr Speaker, President Tharman spoke of cushioning burdens and pressures of cost and daily living and ensuring that every citizen has access to life's essentials.

I have previously called for removing Annual Value as a means testing criterion for residents with zero household income. This is also in our WP manifesto, and indeed, MPs across the aisle have raised this issue in the previous Parliament. While healthcare subsidies were recently expanded, an Annual Value of over $21,000 still denies crucial medical subsidies to some of those without income, so I am reiterating this call today.

The Annual Value is an unjust metric, often outside a homeowner's control. A person's eligibility should be based on transparent person-oriented criteria, not property valuation. We should delink healthcare affordability from property values. Let us use a more accurate person-centric measures to ensure our social safety net is truly strong and fair, especially for our seniors.

Mr Speaker, President Tharman had also spoken of building a society where no one is left behind. He stressed that by strengthening assurance and keeping opportunities open, we can build a more resilient and confident society, even in an uncertain world. He also spoke of nurturing a "we first" society, one that is more open and engaged, where citizens are empowered to take initiative and lead ground-up programmes. This is about building a society with deepened solidarity.

These aspirations must surely go beyond economic metrics. They should allow Singaporeans to pursue their passions and to build a society that is not only prosperous but also rich in culture and spirit.

Former US President John F Kennedy once said, and I quote, "The life of the arts, far from being an interruption, a distraction in the life of a nation, is very close to the centre of a nation's purpose... and is a test of the quality of a nation's civilisation". This aptly reminds us that while policies have a role to play, it is through art, culture and shared experiences that the people's values are truly shaped. It is paramount that there are spaces for artists to thrive and for our collective spirit to flourish.

The recent closure of The Projector in August this year, due to immense pressures of rising costs and changing consumer habits, is a stark and painful reminder of the challenges facing some of our creative communities. It was more than just a cinema; it was a sanctuary for independent artistic expression and a beacon for communities that struggled to find their place.

This is not an isolated tragedy. It follows the permanent closure of The Substation, our first independent art centre. Among the reasons for The Substation's closure was the changes in the way they were allowed to use the premise, which meant they could no longer operate in the same manner as before. We also witnessed the displacement of The Necessary Stage, a pillar of our theatre scene from a 17-year-old home, due to redevelopment.

These events are not just individual losses. They point to a deeper structural issue where our independent art spaces, the very heart of a ground up culture, lack the long-term stability to survive the combined forces of economic pressure, urban redevelopment and perhaps, less supportive policies. The impact on our artists and our national soul is indelible, and with every closure of such a space, our country becomes culturally poorer.

To truly become a world-class arts hub, we must ensure that our own independent and creative voices are not left behind. A vibrant culture must be nurtured from the ground up, grounded in the authenticity, diversity and the originality of our local artists and the spaces that cultivate them.

On the occasion of our nation's 60th birthday this year, we must reflect on the society that we are and the society that we hope to become. Are we content to be a society where homegrown initiatives are almost inevitably replaced by those bigger and better resource? In his National Day Rally speech, the Prime Minister spoke of the importance of the Singapore Spirit. This spirit is, of course, more than just economic progress; it must be tempered with a Singaporean soul and I submit that independent public spaces where artists can develop their craft, communities can be nurtured, and hearts and minds can be expanded, can go some way to contribute to this Singaporean soul.

It is my hope that we can reimagine the role of the arts in Singapore, not as an indulgence, but as a pillar of who we are. This means a possible two-pronged approach. First, by creating policies that offer long-term stability for independent art spaces and increasing governmental support where it is most needed for these groups. Second, and crucially, we must foster a collective mindset that sees the arts as essential to our national fabric. Together, through more supportive policies and everyday choices, we can ensure the local artists and independent spaces thrive. By doing so, we lend our hand to the ground up initiatives of our arts community and, in turn, we can strengthen our society and deepen the solidarity that defines us.

Mr Speaker, I next speak on climate action and accountability. President Tharman brightly spoke of climate change as an existential threat.

Mr Speaker, on 10 February 2025, Singapore submitted its 2035 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), which was to reduce emissions to 45-50 million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) by 2035. This represents finally a downward emissions trajectory towards the path to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, as previously announced in 2022.

These climate change targets are important to signal Singapore's commitment to the United Nation (UN) Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Paris Agreement. To put into effect these climate targets, Singapore has passed several laws to address climate change, including the Carbon Pricing Act, which puts in place a carbon tax.

There are several pathways for Singapore to achieve net-zero, but not all of these are entirely clear at the moment, given global uncertainties and rollbacks in climate efforts.

In addition to decarbonisation, Singapore is already importing electricity from neighbouring countries and is exploring purchasing carbon credits, carbon captured, utilisation and storage solutions, and even thinking of building small and medium sized nuclear plants to meet our needs. Knowing more details on these pathways will help inspire trust among the Singaporeans in these options. The WP has consistently asked for clarity on the carbon tax allowances provided to emissions-intensive and trade-exposed sectors in this House, and how these transitory allowances may impact Singapore's ability to achieve its 2030 and 2025 NDCs.

The question that remains in is whether these laws and measures will be sufficient in its contribution in an era of global boiling, a term coined by former UN Secretary General in July 2023. Following a recent 10-day visit by the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, Ms Astrid Puentes Riaño, in May 2025, it was reported and there was, I quote her, "significant space for improvement" for Singapore to reduce emissions and protect nature. Notably, Ms Puentes Riaño pointed out the lack of clarity on when environmental impact assessments are done, when they are published, and what is published, and urged the Singapore Government to be more inclusive in engaging the public on environmental matters.

The transitory allowance framework provides allowances to ease the financial burden of the carbon tax. However, there is a lack of publicly available information on its implementation and success. With greater details, it will be less difficult for Singaporeans to assess whether these allowances are effective in incentivising companies to decarbonise, and to understand how does the Government ensure that businesses do not use carbon offsets to avoid the more challenging and expensive work of transitioning their operations to be more efficient and less carbon intensive.

In this regard, I think Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong for his reply to my PQ yesterday where he said that the Government will review the provision of the transitory allowances for companies in Emissions-Intensive and Trade-Exposed sectors and adjust them based on how companies have delivered on their decarbonisation plans, taking into consideration international developments and advancements in the carbonisation technologies.

I still hope that the Ministry can in due course provide more details on the Transitory Allowance Framework, including its performance metrics and a clear evaluation of its success in driving decarbonisation. I would also like to know whether the Government has an existing verification and accreditation framework in place to assess if all companies eligible for carbon tax allowances have met their criteria? If so, can the Government share more information on this in this House?

Finally, if our climate strategy relies on technologies which are still developing, such as carbon capture, utilisation and storage, we must expect these technologies must scale up as quickly and affordably as hoped, so that Singapore may not fall short of the goals.

Ultimately, the urgency of the global climate crisis may demand that we prioritise proven, impactful measures. Can the Government share more on its efforts to overcome challenges arising from the quality and integrity of carbon credits to date, including the limited supply of eligible, high-quality carbon credits that meet Singapore's stringent criteria and also the effectiveness of our current carbon-offsetting programme? Are these offsets genuinely leading to a reduction in global emissions? We must continue to ensure that our commitment to tackling climate change is reflected in a decisive and transparent plan of action that meets the urgency of this crisis.

Mr Speaker, the points I have made today on Active Ageing Centres, means-testing for healthcare, the arts and our efforts to fight climate change, all point to the goal of building a more resilient and compassionate society. We must embrace policies that are transparent, fair and grounded in community. This means providing practical, on-the-ground support for our seniors; ensuring our social safety nets are both just and effective; and fostering a vibrant arts community that strengthens our national soul. It is only by addressing these diverse challenges with unity and a renewed sense of purpose that we can build the caring and confident Singapore we all aspire to be. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.

Senior Parliamentary Secretary Goh Hanyan.

Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion to thank the President for his address. Mr Speaker, Singapore has been described by some as a swan, calm and collected on the surface, but paddling hard beneath. That is what we are as a nation. That quiet, unwavering tenacity is what brought us from mudflats to metropolis.

But have we arrived? No, I believe we have just begun. Singapore is safe, stable and secure, but let us be clear that is not our pinnacle. It is our floor. For the next phase of Singapore's development, Mr Speaker, I would like us to challenge ourselves to be that swan that paddles strong in order to take flight to set our gaze beyond the waterline, to put the wind beneath our people's wings. That is how we will stay stable on the water and soar boldly into an uncertain future.

To do so, we need to tap into what truly moves us. We all know that feeling – that tug at your heartstrings, not because of sadness, but because you care about something so much, it moves you. Think back on that moment for you. Your child's first steps. Helping a friend in need. Delivering your maiden speech in Parliament. Hold on to that feeling. I hope we can build a Singapore where our youths can feel free to pursue what stirs that precise emotion in them. For us to be a nation that is not just remembered for its order and efficiency but remembered for its soul. For the dreams that it ignites, for the passion that it arouses, and for the courage it gives its young people to pursue what matters to them the most.

But for our youths to dream, we need to recognise the realities that they live in. It means little to them when we compare what they have today to our past successes because today is all they know. On many accounts, they are in a good position compared to their peers globally. Yet many feel unsupported, and some are uncertain about the future. While they may have better starting points today, they are unlikely to see as sharp an inflection in our nation's development as their parents did, and that is because we are a maturing economy. While they are more connected, they yearn for real connections.

In 2024, a poll by the Institute of Policy Studies found that those between the ages of 21 and 34 reported a higher loneliness score. More importantly, they were more comfortable interacting online than in person. While the quality of care is increasing, they will shoulder a greater burden of care. Ten years ago, there were about six working-age adults for every senior. The number today is three and a half and it is expected to shrink. So, for our youth to dream, we need to set them on the right path and address three fundamental shifts in their reality, from where they start in life, to how they experience life, and how they care for who they love. First, our youth will experience unequal starting points that they have left unchecked will likely widen with intergenerational wealth transfers.

Meritocracy has brought Singapore fairness and growth. A person is rewarded because of his effort and that remains the best organising principle for a society that is multicultural, multireligious and multiracial like Singapore. However, we need to recognise its consequences and adapt. When everyone started from zero, effort was enough. Today, children inherit their parents' advantages, and as such, starting points very greatly right at birth through no effort of the child. Let us take a simple example to illustrate.

Today, a median worker in Singapore earns about $66,000 annually. Compare this to an individual who inherits $5,000,000 in assets. He cashes it out, puts it into a fixed deposit of 1.6%. He or she then earns $80,000 in interest annually. Now this is passive income. In other words, this person is earning 20% more than your median worker. As I said, this is an extremely simplistic example but it is to say that we have to pay attention to returns to capital and returns to labour.

Furthermore, wealth accumulation is self-reinforcing. Those with more wealth tend to have higher investment returns and this is because they have better access to financial literacy and riskier financial products. These advantages are then transferred from one generation to the next, widening wealth positions. This is not a unique problem for Singapore. Countries around the world recognise this and are trying ways to address wealth inequality. For example, Spain has a net wealth tax, France has an inheritance tax. However, these instruments have their limitations. Some are prone to loopholes, while others are challenging to administer. And that is because wealth is inherently extremely mobile.

But Singapore must find our own way, one where those with more, must contribute more. One that still preserves our values of self-reliance and competitiveness, one where we raise revenues in a way that is fair and progressive. To be clear, this is not about culling tall poppies. This is about giving greater consideration to one's wealth, in addition to one's income within our tax system. This is about channelling accumulated wealth into increasing opportunity and social mobility. When we do this well and channel more resources towards youths that are less privileged, they will feel it. No youth deserves to start 10 laps behind before the race has even begun.

In the past few months at Nee Soon, I have seen this myself. Students struggling to get back on their two feet because they are from an abusive family. One where her dad just passed away and others working part-time to supplement a single parent income. These youths need to know that they can break the cycle and chart their own paths. That is how we move forward as a nation. One where every person, every young person has the chance to dream, regardless where they start in life.

Second, youths today face a rapidly transforming world because of technology especially AI. AI has helped to do things faster, better and cheaper that has freed us up from the routine tasks. At the same time, there are valid anxieties over how AI impacts our jobs and our sectors. Our youths today, wonder whether the skills they pick up will prepare them for the jobs of tomorrow.

According to a LinkedIn study, professionals today, 10% of them hold roles that did not even exist in the year 2000. Imagine what that number will be 10 years from now. The reality is that no one can predict with certainty how jobs will change, and it is precisely because we cannot predict how jobs will change that we must tap into what makes us human and hone in on that.

In an everchanging world, I believe that play remains the most important skill to adapt. We must ensure that our youths have the opportunities to experiment, construct meaning from experiences and interact in real life. Because the messy and imperfect spaces where we interact is where we develop our deepest resilience. Now that, is what differentiates human intelligence from artificial.

As the phrase goes: having an education is one thing, being educated is another. Our education system must go beyond teaching people how to do economically productive things to one that teaches them how to be in the world, how to interact with others, how to think. Our agencies and other stakeholders have taken steps to address this. For example, the National Youth Council has their Youth Expedition Projects that give students overseas experiences. Stakeholders like The Astronauts Collective have expanded mentorship opportunities and career exploration to our Institute of Technical Education (ITE) and polytechnic students.

I saw first-hand how such experiences can be empowering. In June this year, I had the chance to attend the National Youth Council's Leaders Course. This is an annual three-day two-night programme where they bring students from different backgrounds – ITE, polytechnics and universities. At the closing event, a few students were invited on stage to share about their experiences. One of these experiences and sharing resonated deeply with me. He was an ITE student. He went on stage and he shared that at the start of the programme he initially felt out of place and shy. I was surprised by how vulnerable and honest he was in that moment. Then, he shared that it was through the support of his group mates and the activities over the three days that he too realised that he had something to bring to the table. And at the end of it, you could see him standing on stage smiling brightly, presenting confidently and commanding the stage. You could tell from his body language how proud he was. Something had shifted within him. He felt it.

We need more of such experiences where our youths can move into uncomfortable spaces, tap into what they had all along, and believe in themselves. It is by working through our deepest discomfort, engaging with others that we grow. It is not by sitting behind a screen alone.

Third, our youths are growing up in an ageing Singapore that will place immense pressure on them as they enter adulthood. Once a nation that cared for babies and children, we are now, a nation that cares for the old. Not everyone has children, but everyone has parents.

Supporting this generation therefore means supporting them and backing them to care for who they love. Globally, people spend a staggering 16.4 billion hours every single day on unpaid care. According to a Duke-National University of Singapore study, primary informal caregivers in Singapore spend an average of 33 hours each week on care. This scale is significant. It is staggering. It is shocking. As family sizes decrease, the balance between work and caregiving will tip, forcing our youth to choose between family or progression.

We can do better. Care is essential to dignity and social cohesion. We must create systems where care is shared more fully, recognised more strongly and supported more holistically. Progression and family should not be a binary choice. They must come hand in hand.

In Singapore, we have increased financial support for caregivers and that is a really good start. But we all know, it is the visits to the hospital, the unscheduled calls for help that that really, really strains. In other countries like Switzerland, they provide leave for caregivers. That is something we should evaluate along with similar policies that not only address financial needs, but also time and effort of our caregivers.

So, Mr Speaker, rather than looking in the rear view mirror, our youths must be able to look ahead. They must be able to chart their own paths. They must be given the room and the ability to dream.

To our youths, I am committed to meet you at your realities from where you start in life to how you experience life and when you enter adulthood, to how you care for who you love. The words of my children's favourite song, and probably some of you as well, it truly describes the future that I hope we can forge for you today: "I am done hiding, now I am shining, like I am born to be. We are dreaming hard, we came so far, now, I believe." Mr Speaker, please let me say a few lines in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): This year marks the 60th anniversary of Singapore and our society has entered a rapid changing new era.

Although our younger generation does not worry about basic necessities, like every generation of young people, they too have their own anxieties and pressures. For example, young people worry that their jobs will be replaced by AI, so they are all working hard to learn about AI.

But I hope that while young people are catching up with AI, they will also look around, spend more time with family and friends and go outdoors, participate more in group activities, experience life, strengthen their interpersonal skills and most importantly, cultivate resilience in facing failure and overcoming challenges.

Beyond this, we must provide more support programmes to help young people reduce their burden and worries. Let them pursue their aspirations with greater confidence and ability. I hope Singapore can serve as a strong foundation for the younger generation to courageously pursue their dreams.

(In English): Mr Speaker, in conclusion, let us leave behind a Singapore where our children and their children can also say, "They gave us a Singapore that was not just safe, but one where the heart, soul and wonder of its people were nurtured". [Applause.]

Ms Yeo Wan Ling.

Mr Speaker, Sir, time really flies. It seems only yesterday when I delivered my maiden speech in Parliament. But five years has since passed and it has certainly been a very eventful and heartwarming five years for me.

I recall my maiden speech, like many in the House, was about kindness and I shared about the childhood days I spent in the 1980s, in the Holland Drive neighbourhood where my father had his clinic. It was about the friendships we had with our neighbours, many who I still remember vividly. Uncle Mohammad and the magazine and stationery store he used to run – it was called PMS – and I remembered 8 Days picked it up as a most noteworthy name. Aunty Siew Ying, a Malaysian turned Singaporean who ran a snatzy Jantzen hairdressing salon – that wa where I got my first professional haircut after years of grandma's home bowl haircut. I still remember vividly, ooh, the excitement my sister and I had tasting our first very adult, very grown-up "XO Fishhead Bee Hoon" from Uncle Chang who opened that innovative new stall in the coffeeshop right next to my dad's clinic.

The fondness I had for the neighbourhood was all about the kindness that the community had for one another. We knew each other by name. My parents trusted our neighbours enough that my sister and I could always run around the neighbourhood unaccompanied. We shared news about our lives and families, and most importantly, we counted on each other to seek and give help openly.

I know that these values ring true in many fellow Singaporean's hearts because in the days that followed from that maiden speech, I had Punggol residents and volunteers who came up to me and ask if I was Dr Yeo's daughter, as he used to be their family doctor, and they recall that neighbourhood I grew up in and all its residents there with much fondness. One of them recalled me and my sister hanging out in my dad's clinic in our school pinafores, and honestly, that made me feel very warm. But I am particularly heart-warmed that one of our Punggol residents who remembered my father well, eventually also had her daughter, Chloe, who is now studying to be a doctor, volunteer with us, and she is now a loved young community leader. Indeed, kindness begets kindness and that is the true virtuous circle of life.

Mr Speaker, I believe that when you call out to the Universe, the Universe will answer you, and over the past five years, I have seen much kindness in our communities. It might seem to be a very distant memory, but COVID-19, DORSCON Orange, Circuit-Breaker, contact-tracing, vaccinations, isolation, PETs, swabbings only ended and went into the endemic phase just some 30 months ago.

I remember I spent the first three years of my time as an MP in a mask, dealing with COVID-19 community matters, assuaging fears, comforting distress, dispelling disinformation and getting residents who were new to me to place their trust in me, even in a mask, and to place trust in our Government policies. It was only with the kindness and fortitude of our trusty community volunteers and leaders that we were able to do what we did. My community leader, Patrick, was with me when we delivered our Care Packs in the middle of the night to residents who had COVID. Kathryn was with me when we allayed the fears of residents who saw cleaners in full PET kits cleaning up the Punggol Plaza "COVID Cluster". Cristine was with me when we identified and set up rest areas in Punggol coffeeshops to allow our delivery riders to rest and eat between their delivery rounds. Winston and Charles were with me when we set up our first counters to distribute – believe it or not hand-made face masks with care vouchers. To the Chloes, Patricks, Kathryns, Cristines, Winstons and Charles, and all our brave community leaders, this is a Motion of Thanks, and it is most appropriate that we remember what all of you did. Thank you, our grassroots, our volunteers for being the kind bedrock of our community and doing what you did for Singapore. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker, in these five years, the kindness I have seen extends too into the realm of workers, many whom I have had the honour of representing through my work at the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC). At this point Mr Speaker, I declare that am the Executive Secretary for the National Transport Workers' Union, Advisor to the National Taxi Association, National Private Hire Vehicles Association, National Delivery Champions Association and the Director for the NTUC's Women and Family Unit.

Mr Speaker, as I was saying, our workers keep Singapore running and they do this in unseen, quiet ways. Indeed, this is the "Secret Lives of Workers", and I believe that should more Singaporeans have a glimpse into this world, they would appreciate the kindness and sacrifices of our workers, and in turn, appreciate why we at the Labour Movement continue to fight for better protection and progress for our Singaporean workers. Sometimes, all we need is to take a short pause from our own busyness, take a look around, have a short chat and to unveil these secrets.

For most Singaporeans, taking a bus is part of their daily commute and I think it is wonderful that many commuters have made friends with our bus captains, and our bus captains told me that commuters have shared snacks and drinks with them to show their appreciation. However, did you know that for the vast majority of our bus captains, their lunch breaks are only 25 minutes and in between runs, their breaks can be as short as six minutes. In fact, an often-shared hack amongst bus captains, is not to drink water during service times, as many do not even have the chance at a toilet break. Many start their day at 4.30 am when the first bus leaves the depot and the day ends for many at 2.00 am when the last bus reaches the depot. Our captains can drive up to 16 runs in a day, with the longest uninterrupted run being two hours 45 minutes. I remain appreciative to the dedication and hard work our bus captains put in to ensure a safe and comfortable commute for all of us, and I hope that everyone can encourage our bus captains and public transport workers with an appreciative nod and a nice smile when you next see them.

Mr Speaker, our union leaders are a critical part of our workforce as they are the voice of the ordinary worker and play a unique role between workers and management, negotiating for better protection, privileges and progress while ensuring that there is reasonable sustainability for businesses. Articulate, charismatic, nerves of steel, quick on their feet and excellent mediators they are. They make for natural leaders, but did you know, that for many of our union leaders, because of the construct of their collective agreements, they choose to forego promotions, to remain in rank-and-file executive positions so that they can continue to represent fellow workers without worries of conflict of interest. Indeed, it is a calling to be a union leader, and our big brothers and sisters, 大哥大姐们, serve their working lives out in dedicated service to their fellow workers, never seeing their choices as sacrifices, but as choices of care and service.

Mr Speaker, the quiet secret work that our workers put in have undoubtedly driven me to continue to fight for our workers interest and I note with appreciation, what President Tharman said in his speech: "Progress means recognising the value in every job – in the trades, crafts, and services, no less than in offices and boardrooms – and ensuring that everyone who contributes to society earns respect, and can build a good life".

I cannot agree more. Building on this vision and our labour values, I call on the Government to continue their good work with tripartite partners to ensure that every worker is recognised and valued for their contributions at work and at home. In particular, securing fair pay and a just future for our platform workers; ensuring good jobs for our public transport workers; and supporting our women and caregivers to thrive at home and at work.

I shall speak more on platform workers today. For the past decade or so, NTUC and our Platform Work Associations (PWAs) have pushed for the Platform Workers Act to secure better protections for our platform workers. Today, thanks to the efforts and cooperation of our tripartite partners, our platform workers now have rights to full CPF contributions, mandatory work injury compensation and representation by our PWAs.

Since the Act was implemented in January 2025, our Platform Work Associations have gone on to secure critical recognition from Grab, ComfortDelGro Zig, Lalamove, GoGoX, TADA and Trans-Cab's Smile Ride. This means that recognition strengthens our PWAs' ability to negotiate with individual platforms to secure better wages, welfare and work prospects for our platform workers. Indeed, bilateral negotiations between PWAs and platform operators are an important means for us to secure better outcomes for our platform workers. Indeed, our negotiations have already started to yield success for us with Grab and we successfully negotiated for incentive changes after feedback from our drivers, as well as secured priority shift bookings for our food delivery platform workers in high-demand areas.

Most recently, NTUC and our PWAs initiated a senior-level trilateral workgroup to tackle illegal practices that unfairly undercut our platform workers' jobs and earnings. I am glad that the trilateral workgroup has yielded concrete outcomes that make a difference to our platform workers. Over 70 foreign registered vehicles have been caught offering illegal ride services with most being impounded. Four foreigners were arrested for working illegally as delivery riders without valid work passes.

Mr Speaker, the PWAs will continue to work with the relevant Government agencies to strengthen enforcement levers to better deter and detect illegal practices.

While these measures have made a difference, our work is not still far from being done. Platform workers continue to face challenges, such as unpredictable and unclear earnings, as well as variable incentives that can require them to work excessive hours to unlock targets.

Mr Speaker Sir, our platform workers deserve to earn fair pay so they can, by working hard, earn a decent living for themselves and their families. As a society, we must make progress in recognising and respecting the contributions of our platform workers where it matters most, in how they are paid and treated for work that they have done.

This is where I am heartened by the progress that our PWAs are making with our platform partners.

Our PWAs and nine platform operators, including major platforms, like Grab, Foodpanda and Deliveroo, have agreed on a set of principles to ensure fair earnings and safe incentive schemes for our platform workers. Arising from these principles, the platforms have committed to consult drivers and the PWAs on ways to ensure fair and transparent earnings, to proactively engage PWAs prior to major changes to incentive schemes, and to monitor their platform workers' online hours and adjust incentive programmes, where necessary, to ensure that they do not encourage overwork. As an update to our platform drivers and riders, do know that our PWAs are in close discussions the platform operators to operationalise these principles in the context of individual platform policies.

Beyond these immediate concerns, we must also work to ensure a just future for our private hire vehicle (PHV), taxi and bus drivers, especially amidst the planned roll-out of autonomous vehicles (AVs), the upcoming Rapid Transit System (RTS) Link and discussions with Malaysia to expand cross-border transport opportunities.

The Labour Movement recognises the benefits of this technology transition for Singaporeans, especially in augmenting transport networks for travels, including across the border to Malaysia. But for our drivers, these announcements can be very concerning. They worry: what will happen to me? Will I still be able to make a living?

Mr Speaker, this is where, as the President aptly put in his address, "the trust built through many years of tripartism gives us an edge. It enables us to move faster in deploying technologies while managing disruptions to the workforce and generating new job opportunities."

This is why NTUC and PWAs are working very closely with the Ministry of Transport and through committees, such as the Inter-Ministerial Steering Committee on Autonomous Vehicles, to bring our drivers' concerns to the table. Amidst the roll-out of AVs, the upcoming RTS Link and discussions to expand cross-border transport, our drivers must be assured of a just future, that there will be jobs for them and they will be given the support and time they need to transit to these jobs.

Mr Speaker, the last area that I would touch on is supporting our women and caregivers to thrive at work and at home. MOM has provided that, as of 2023, close to 90% of full-time employees of working age were provided at least one scheduled flexible work arrangement (FWA) they required. We need to understand what the picture is like for FWAs since 2023. From the Labour Movement, there have been more reports of employers requiring workers to return to the office fully and to follow standard working hours.

Caregivers, through our unions, have also told us that they remain concerned that they will be overlooked or sidelined at work due to demands at home. As such, NTUC is committed to normalise FWAs in the workplace and to ensure that workers on FWAs are treated and compensated fairly in performance appraisals and promotions.

Mr Speaker, as I round up my speech, I circle back to the intrinsic value of being kind. Let us measure our progress on how we have moved as a society to improve the livelihoods of our workers and the lives of the people around us. Speaking with kindness, acting with kindness, thinking with kindness, I trust these will continue to be the foundations of our treasured Singapore values. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion with kindness. [Applause.]

Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.55 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended