Hansard, Wednesday, 15 October 2025

1 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Acting Minister for Transport what considerations have been put in place to ensure that Singaporean taxi and private hire drivers' livelihoods are safeguarded even if more licences are made available to Malaysian cross-border services upon review of the Cross Border Taxi Scheme.

2 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry is looking into facilitating more point-to-point (P2P) transfers between Singapore and Johor Bahru given the setting up of Johor-Singapore Economic Zone; and (b) if so, how will the Ministry safeguard the livelihood of Singapore P2P drivers given the large cost disparity of driving Malaysian-registered and Singapore-registered vehicles.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 1 to 2 in today’s Order Paper together, please?

Go ahead.

The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has been conducting enforcement operations against illegal point-to-point (P2P) services. Since July this year, the LTA has impounded 107 vehicles whose drivers were caught providing illegal services.

We recognise that there is demand from commuters for more convenient cross-border P2P services. The Ministry of Transport (MOT) and LTA have been exploring options to enhance the existing arrangements. For instance, under the Cross Border Taxi Scheme, we are discussing with Malaysia possible options to liberalise the scheme, including to allow Malaysian cross-border taxis to drop off passengers anywhere in Singapore, and Singaporean taxis to do likewise in Johor Bahru. This will provide greater convenience to commuters from both countries.

To minimise foreign taxis cruising around empty and potentially carrying out illegal trips, these foreign taxis would only be allowed to pick up passengers at designated points so that they do not infringe into the local P2P market. However, for the convenience of commuters, we will identify more pick-up points in both Johor Bahru and Singapore. We will discuss options with the Malaysian authorities on a reciprocal basis.

We will continue to engage the National Taxi Association (NTA) and the National Private Hire Vehicles Association (NPHVA) to take in their suggestions.

We are also exploring using location tracking, including ERP 2.0, and other measures to prevent illegal trips by cross-border taxis within Singapore.

LTA will continue its enforcement efforts even after enhancements to the existing arrangements are rolled out.

Ms Yeo Wan Ling.

Thank you, Speaker. I declare I am the adviser to NTA and NPHVA. Given the deep social and economic ties between Singapore and Malaysia, our drivers have expressed through the associations that they are excited that the calls to review and update the current Cross Border Taxi Scheme are being looked into. Ensuring that the scheme remains relevant as consumption patterns change is critical, as this is a livelihood stream for 200 of our Singapore cross-border drivers.

With the programme being updated, and I have taken note of the Senior Minister of State's response, with the increasing demands for P2P drop-offs, how will the Ministry use technology such as online booking platforms and in-vehicle tracking units to ensure that there is fair competition between Singapore-licensed and Malaysian-licensed vehicles, noting that there are fare and exchange rate differences? Also, more importantly, how will the Ministry look to expanding the scheme to allow our drivers broader earning opportunities?

I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. Indeed, there is a lot of unmet demand from commuters who would like to travel more frequently across the border. We have families with children, families with the elderly, families who want to visit relatives in Johor Bahru. They want to do shopping trips. They want to go on short holidays. So, it is under these conditions that we are looking at how to enhance the current Cross Border Taxi Scheme.

The Member had some questions with regard to the use of technology. We see that some of our taxi operators have already rolled out online booking forms, phone calls as well, to facilitate doorstep pick-up in Singapore. At the same time, I have shared that we can make use of the installation of the on-board unit (OBU), especially on foreign taxis, in order to enhance location tracking. And not to forget our platform operators, the ride-hail platform operators, also have technology platforms that they can use to enhance location tracking.

So, these are ways in which we can ensure that foreign vehicles are not conducting illegal P2P trips in Singapore.

The second question she had was with regard to fares. When it comes to fares, we will have discussions with the NTA as well as the NPHVA to understand what are the reasonable fares we should be looking at to enhance cross-border trips. We know that there are cost disparities between the cost of operating as well as driving in Singapore versus Johor Bahru, so, we will take this into consideration when setting fares.

Mr Ang Wei Neng.

Thank you, Speaker. Thank you, Senior Minister of State Sun for the comprehensive reply. Before I go on, let me declare I am the CEO of Strides Premier, a company that provides cross-border taxi service as well.

I have a few supplementary questions. First of all, what is the plan that LTA has to expand the fleet of 200 cross-border taxis to more, and whether it will allow the application by a taxi driver on a monthly basis, rather than restrict it to once a year?

Secondly, what is the plan to expand this cross-border taxi service to private hire cars? Because private hire cars' pricings are quite dynamic and as pointed out by the Senior Minister of State, the operating cost of driving a P2P vehicle in Johor Bahru is a small fraction of what is the cost in Singapore. So, how would MOT consider measures to prevent the undercutting of fares in this matter? And thirdly, when the Senior Minister of State says that LTA wants to increase the number of drop-off points in Malaysia and Singapore – currently, there is only one drop-off point in Johor Bahru and it is in Larkin; and in Singapore, there is one drop-off point – how many drop-off points is MOT thinking of having? Is it five? Is it 10 or is it 20?

I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. There have been several discussions between Singapore's MOT as well as Malaysia's Ministry of Transport and Agensi Pengangkutan Awam Darat (APAD). Amongst the discussion points that we have include a higher quota of taxis for each country, the introduction of larger multi-purpose vehicle taxi models and the use of ride-hailing apps to make bookings.

The Member had a second question with regard to private hire vehicles. This, I would approach cautiously because we have been having discussions with our local NPHVA. They are conscious that if we should liberalise the Cross Border Taxi Scheme too widely and not have a separate scheme for private hire vehicles, there could be a situation where private hire vehicles could end up providing illegal P2P services in Singapore.

I think what is important to note is that any vehicle, especially those which are foreign that operate in Singapore, they need to have the necessary decals, the necessary livery, so that is very clear that they are part of a licence scheme that has been negotiated between both countries, and not individuals owning private hire vehicles conducting illegal P2P trips.

Sorry, the Member had a third question. Yes, could I ask him to repeat that?

Yes, thank you to the Senior Minister of State. My third question is that we know the cost of operating a taxi in Malaysia is a small fraction of the cost of operating a taxi in Singapore. So, when we increase the fleet size and also liberalise the cross-border taxi services, how could we ensure that the parties will not undercut the fare?

Thank you. I had shared in my main reply that part of the discussions that we are having with the Malaysian authorities is to allow Singapore as well as Malaysian vehicles to drop off at any point in Singapore and in Johor Bahru, because there is demand, this is a need that has been expressed by commuters.

But that said, it is very important that we enforce effectively. And that is why I have emphasised the need for us to have the installation of the OBU, for instance, for the purposes of location tracking and also discussing with platform operators to use their technology platforms to track where the vehicles are going.

Ms Yeo, keep it short.

Thank you, Speaker. I note that Senior Minister of State had in her reply talked about working with ride-hail platforms, and I also have reports of ride-hail platforms from across the border being set up, introducing cross-border taxi services. How will LTA or MOT be working with these overseas registered apps to ensure that there is parity and fairness when it comes to offering such rides in Singapore as well as in Malaysia?

I thank the Member for her supplementary question. Such apps have to be recognised by both Singapore and Malaysia. So, where we are aware that there are apps that are being used to provide cross-border services, but have actually not been endorsed by our local authorities before-hand, we will investigate. We cannot allow the proliferation of apps that have not been discussed between both authorities before. This is to ensure that there will not be illegal P2P trips being conducted via such apps.

Mr Ang. Keep it short as well.

Thank you, Speaker. I have asked a question on how could we prevent the undercutting of fares, because the cost of operating a taxi in Malaysia is only a fraction of the cost of operating a taxi in Singapore.

I thank the Member for his question. As part of the review of the Cross Border Taxi Scheme, we will be consulting our associations to ensure that fares are reasonable to our passengers, while providing assurance to Singaporean drivers that cross-border trips are viable, given their operational cost.

I think what the Member is concerned about is rides that are illegal, and the fares of these illegal rides are undercutting the fares and the services that are being provided by legal provision of such services. So, for such illegal provision of services where fares are undercutting the fares that are pre-negotiated between both countries' authorities, we will enforce in a strict manner against such illegal providers of services.

Last supplementary question. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. Keep it short.

Thank you, Speaker. If I may build on the question by Ms Yeo earlier on, I have also received feedback from residents engaged in private hire vehicle services that these illegal ride-hailing services are offered not just via unauthorised apps, but also via chat groups.

My first question is I am wondering whether the Ministry has a sense of the pervasiveness of such illegal services being offered via chat groups as well as apps. And secondly, if the Ministry has a plan to crack down on such means of securing services, for example, using "secret shopper" or methodologies of this nature?

I thank the Member for his question. Under Singapore's laws, the Government can order the take down of content linked to illegal activities and non-compliance can lead to further enforcement actions like blocking access or app removal. So, this is with regards to illegal chat groups that promote the provision of illegal P2P services.

MOT and LTA are also looking to obtain further legal powers to ensure that online platforms comply with LTA's removal request for illegal P2P services should the platforms remain unresponsive. At the same time, the LTA has also been conducting operations to infiltrate into these chat groups and to take action against providers of such illegal services. Unfortunately, for operational reasons, I cannot share more details. But rest assured that LTA is aware of the situation.

3 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Minister for Manpower (a) from 2021 to 2025, whether there is data on the number of migrant domestic workers in Singapore who have (i) sought treatment for mental health conditions or (ii) encountered legal issues when seeking treatment for mental illnesses; and (b) if so, what is the data.

Mr Speaker, each year, between 2022 and 2024, less than 20 migrant domestic workers (MDWs) sought medical assistance at public healthcare institutions, polyclinics and general practitioners (GPs) for mental health reasons. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has not come across any cases of MDWs encountering legal issues when seeking such assistance.

MDWs' legal rights to access medical treatment, including for mental health conditions, are protected under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act which requires employers to cover their MDW's medical expenses, including for mental health treatments. Employers who deny their MDWs of necessary medical treatment could be fined up to $10,000 and/or imprisoned for up to 12 months. The employer may also be barred from employing migrant workers in the future.

Dr Razak.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. The reason I am asking this supplementary question is that we have feedback on the ground that some MDWs have cited mental health issues to seek secondary employment as well as breaking down soon after seeking employment following a medical assessment prior to getting employment. I think the question has been raised in the House before, on whether the Ministry would consider, at some point in time, when the burden of mental health illness, which is a certain threshold, if mental health assessment be part of the pre-employment assessment for MDWs in future.

I thank the Member for the question. Today, MDWs are required to declare whether they have mental health conditions, as part of their pre-employment medical examination. So, where there is a positive declaration or any suspicion that they have mental health conditions, the attending doctor, at that time, may recommend further assessments, but with additional costs.

This approach helps to keep medical tests and costs manageable for the employers in general, whilst ensuring that the individuals with healthcare conditions can be identified for further necessary follow-up. So, employers with concerns about their MDWs' mental health well-being, are also advised to seek medical advice, which may also be referred to a mental health facility or care professional.

4 Mr Foo Cexiang asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) in each of the past five years, how much Government funding has been provided for public service broadcasting (PSB); (b) which PSB programmes has received such Government funding; and (c) whether the Ministry has assessed a need to recalibrate the amount of Government funding provided in order to boost the popularity of locally created content.

5 Mr Foo Cexiang asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Ministry tracks data and statistics on viewership ratings of public service broadcasting (PSB) programmes; and (b) if so, how do the viewership ratings of PSB programmes in the past five years compare with those in the earlier preceding five years.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 4 and 5 together?

Go ahead.

Sir, our Public Service Media (PSM) play an important role to inform, educate and connect Singaporeans. They provide trusted and timely sources of information to form a common basis for social discourse. They also reflect our multicultural fabric and way of life.

To enable our PSM entities to effectively adapt and innovate in the fast-changing media landscape, the Government provides funding for their overall operations, rather than individual programmes.

Over the past five financial years, the Government has allocated about $380 million annually to support Mediacorp to reach domestic audiences across four languages. This is lower than the annual funding of approximately $750 million allocated to the national broadcasters of Finland and Denmark, which have similar population sizes to Singapore. Mediacorp reached more than 90% of the local population through its owned and operated platforms as well as social media platforms. More than 75% of its audiences were satisfied with its services.

We do not have comparable reach data in the earlier years as we have moved from tracking solely television (TV) reach to a broader reach metric across all Mediacorp's platforms and social media platforms. This is in keeping with the domestic audiences' changing consumption habits and Mediacorp's broader network strategy. For example, Mediacorp's TV reach dropped by about 10% over the last decade or so, but unique video viewers on meWATCH have increased by about 80% in the same period. Meanwhile, public satisfaction with Mediacorp has held steady, at more than 75% across this time period.

The Government is committed to continue supporting our PSM to deliver high-quality and trusted news and entertainment content to Singaporeans. We will continue to ensure that Government funding can adequately and effectively support our PSM in achieving their national mission.

Mr Foo.

Speaker, Sir, I grew up watching Channel 8 and Channel 5, as did many of my classmates. These were hot discussion topics during lunch, but most importantly, these were core common memories grounded in the local culture and community. I think it is absolutely critical that we continue to have this for future generations.

I understand the challenges of growing demands and competition, such as Netflix, but in particular, there were three developments recently that left me very encouraged.

Mediacorp's Emerald Hill, the Little Nyonya story, I note, was Singapore's most watched series on Netflix, even overtaking hot K-dramas starring starring IU when it first debuted. It had more than 1.67 million views on meWATCH and Channel 8, and it is going to premiere on Chinese streaming platform Tencent at the end of this year. We have had many actors, local actors, nominated for Best Actor/Actresses at the Golden Horse Awards, and I am also looking forward to the return of Xie Shaoguang to the silver screen later.

So, contrary to what naysayers say, I think the future is bright and we have to give this a further boost. Therefore, my question for the Minister is: is the Government prepared to support Mediacorp, our local broadcaster, in more collaborations with international platforms, such as Netflix and Tencent, so that our local produced dramas and shows will have a reach both local and overseas?

Mr Speaker, I am very heartened by the Member's enthusiastic support for creators of local drama content, local entertainment content. I realise that he and I share something in common now. Growing up on local TV productions, we probably can hum several tunes together, given the right opportunity.

He is right that there is a need to support such local production initiatives and he mentioned a few examples that are now available on streaming services, such as Netflix, and soon to come, Tencent. These are very important to widening the reach of not just Mediacorp's productions, but also the productions of independent media content creators in Singapore. They both contribute to the vibrancy of our local ecosystem.

In that regard, I am happy to share with him that it is not just the negotiations that are commercial in nature that take place between the production houses, including Mediacorp, and streaming services. These will, obviously, have to be carried forward with a view towards making sure that there is actually demand for the productions.

Another very important way in which we are supporting this effort is through the International Co-Production Fund that the Infocomm Media Development Authority launched about two years ago. What this programme does is to provide funding support to the producers of local drama series to collaborate with their international counterparts, and their international counterparts will include scriptwriters, directors, producers. The reason we want to do so is to enable a reach into the wider pool of talents that are available but, more importantly, to create content that has potentially an audience beyond Singapore, even though the themes are very much anchored on Singapore.

In this way, we also help the local production houses, including Mediacorp, reach an international audience and tell Singapore stories better. And I am pleased to share with him that since this fund was launched, in fact, there have been productions that have been provided with the support, and we will assess to what extent this kind of support can be sustained as well as expanded in the future.

6 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) how will Singapore support the 20-point peace plan for Gaza proposed by the United States; and (b) whether Singapore will consider playing a role in the peace plan if it is accepted by both Israel and Hamas.

7 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) how does the Government assess the viability of the Gaza peace plan in advancing a two-state solution; and (b) what role can Singapore play to contribute constructively, including the possible recognition of a Palestinian state under suitable conditions.

Mr Speaker, with your permission, can I address Question Nos 6 and 7 together?

Please proceed.

I believe Mr Gerald Giam1 has also filed a question, similar topic, for a subsequent Sitting. I will try to address the issue in this reply and also be happy to take supplementary questions. And if that is adequate, the Member can withdraw his Parliamentary Question that was filed for a later session.

Singapore welcomed the agreement that was reached on 9 October 2025 by Israel and Hamas on the first phase of the Trump peace plan. I need to commend the incredible achievement of President Trump, his negotiating team, which includes Mr Steve Witkoff, Marco Rubio, Jared Kushner and also, the invaluable part played by Egypt, Qatar and Turkey.

This is a critical plan and it is not just the details of the plan or how many points there are. But the fact is that America remains the indispensable superpower with real leverage and is willing to apply that leverage on the warring parties to arrive at where we are today. So, the first phase is now being implemented and in particular, that means a ceasefire and the release of the hostages, at least, those who are alive. And this is crucial, this is important, this is the first step of what will, in fact, be a long and arduous journey to peace. And we should have no illusions. Many things can still go wrong.

The next few essential steps are a surge in humanitarian assistance – and I will explain later what Singapore will do on that front – and then, the establishment of some kind of Transitional Authority. I would also expect and hope that there will be some United Nations (UN) Security Council resolution to provide an international legal framework for these arrangements. And then, the Palestinian Authority, which as part of that plan, has committed to reform. And I will also explain what we will do to assist the Palestinian Authority on its journey and, on its journey, which I would like to add, ultimately, to a two-state solution, which Singapore supports.

So, now let me turn to what we are doing and are hoping to do more of on the humanitarian front.

In the past two years, we have been working very closely with the Egyptian Red Crescent, with the Jordanian Hashemite Charity Organisation. We are also working with the World Food Programme; and we are also working with a few Egyptian hospitals, in fact, the medical team from the National University Hospital was just there a few weeks ago. We have also deployed as and when there has been hospital ships in the area to provide medical treatment to people who need help.

I think the immediate acceleration of humanitarian assistance now, is the fact that I hope the over land routes will open. That is crucial if humanitarian assistance is going to be delivered at the scale necessary. So, we will certainly look forward to doing more with our partners in the region and I would add, we also expect the Israelis to do their part to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance over land through the crossings into Gaza.

It is premature to discuss what we will do with the Transitional Authority, because that is still inchoate at this point in time. But what I would say, is that, in the short term, in the immediate term, we certainly want to do more with the Palestinian Authority.

We have already been working with them for years – capacity-building programmes, technical assistance, more recently, scholarships. And all this with a view to enhancing the capacity, to exercise effective administrative oversight and to exercise the levers of government in their eventual statehood. And I would expect to increase the tempo of our interaction with the Palestinian Authority so that they can fulfil this ambition. Again, we will need time and we will stand ready to respond to the Palestinian Authority's assessment of its own needs and particularly, I hope its ability to exercise governance in Gaza as well, an area in which it has not been able to exercise governance for two decades.

So, I just want to give this House the assurance that we are watching developments very closely and we will do our best within the limits and constraints of distance and the fact that we are very small, but we happen to have a multiracial, multi-religious united society who is open-hearted, generous and willing to do, in a sense, more than our fair share to help people in need in this very dire set of circumstances.

Mr Ang.

Thank you, Sir. And thank you to the Minister for the comprehensive reply. When I submitted this Parliamentary Question, the 20-point peace plan was yet to be accepted by Hamas and Israel. We are glad that the plan has now been accepted and the hostages have been released.

I would like to ask the Minister if Singapore would consider helping to rebuild Gaza by setting up a clinic to offer treatments to the residents of Gaza and send a medical team to Gaza right now, in the interim. And two, will the Minister also consider setting up a school, for example, in Gaza, to educate the young that have very little opportunity to access quality education? And thirdly, will Singapore consider sending a small peacekeeping team to provide logistic support to the bigger efforts led by the US? Of course, I am suggesting this when the situation is more stable.

Mr Speaker, I have explained that we have, in fact, already been contributing on the medical front in the last two years. We look forward to doing more with our partners. But it depends very much on access, on security and on the needs.

I would make this point from a medical perspective. At this stage, you are not dealing with the immediate acute trauma. In fact, you are dealing with difficult sequelae like amputations, the need for prosthesis, the need for rehabilitation, the need to deal with psychological and emotional trauma. So, it is a different set of of specialties that are necessary. And my point again is depending on the needs and depending on our resources, we will do our part. That is on the medical side.

The exact locations of deployment are again dictated by exigencies on the ground. Where are the facilities in which our medical staff can make a contribution? And to that end, I am sure this House will agree, we also want to pay attention to the safety of our staff on the ground.

On schools, well, I think we should be cognisant that there are very few Arab fluent speakers in Singapore. But to the extent that we can work with "train the trainer" programmes, and in the long run, there is going to be a need for education, and vocational education and training, which will help enhance their ability to acquire the skills which are necessary for the long-term economy.

So, these are things again and I see where the Member is coming from, but let us be realistic and approach this in a step wise fashion.

It is premature to talk about peacekeeping troops. As I said, I would wait first for a UN Security Council resolution. I hope there will be one and we will assess very carefully what role we can contribute. It would be premature for me to make any commitments at this stage.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. And I thank the Minister. I had a supplementary question on humanitarian aid assistance and I am heartened to hear that Singapore will continue to work with the international bodies, and at the same time maintain the safety of our humanitarian workers there.

My question is on the President Trump brokered peace deal. While it covers the phased withdrawal and also ceasefire, it leaves the questions of Palestinian statehood and the governance in Gaza unresolved. Does the Government view this as a credible step towards a genuine two-state solution? And then, as a follow-up question to that, I agree with the Minister that it may be too early or premature to tell whether this peace plan would be enduring and effective. But if it does lead to peace and stability for both the Israelis and the Palestinian people, we have to give credit where credit is due. Would Singapore nominate or support President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize?

The 20-point plan, as the Member has said, is a great achievement. It is a first and essential step – but not sufficient to achieving peace, security, development, hope and even ultimately a two-state solution.

Let me come back to the basics of where Singapore stands. Singapore believes the Palestinians have a right to self determination. Singapore believes there should be a negotiated two-state solution. I think I just delivered a Ministerial Statement and we spent two or more than two hours on this subject a month ago. So, our position on that remains unchanged.

Does this agreement help? I think this agreement sets the stage where it is possible to imagine a negotiated two-state solution can emerge. But I also want to remind everyone this has been one of the most intractable conflicts, not just of the last century, but going back a very long time. And whilst we are all cheered by the current positive news, I think we should be very realistic and psychologically be prepared that this will be a long and arduous journey.

For Singapore, we should maintain our consistent principled approach. We should continue to have effective bridges and access to all the stakeholders. We should, wherever possible, within the limits of our capability, be constructive, reliable partners for peace for development and long-term reconciliation between two peoples who have been through unimaginable horrors in the last two years.

Mr Gerald Giam.

Sir, I thank the Minister for his answer. Sir, will Singapore seek a seat for an Eminent Person from Singapore on the Board of Peace, which will oversee the administration of Gaza? This board includes former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

The Minister has said that things are still inchoate, but would he agree that if we wait until it is fully formed, we would have missed the opportunity to get a seat on the board.

Sir, I believe our best contribution could be civil administrators. This is where we have a clear comparative advantage. It is a unique opportunity to contribute expertise and experience in nation building, and we could help build peace in the Middle East, and I dare say, even the wider world, given the global nature of this conflict.

Has the Ministry considered going beyond the regular Singapore Cooperation Programme, which typically invites selects Palestinian civil servants to attend training in Singapore, and instead send our senior civil servants or retired civil civil servants there to set up the administrative frameworks and structures and train the civil servants over there?

Mr Speaker, we are not campaigning to be on the Board of Peace. But let me take a step back and remind everybody. We are Singaporeans. Our approach is always to do more, say less, be quietly helpful and constructive work from the ground up. So, that is why we are not asking to sit on any boards, but we will step up our long-standing cooperation with the Palestinian Authority. And I would also remind you that it is not just under the Singapore Cooperation Programme by which we engage the Palestinian Authority.

We have been having regular meetings at senior levels. Palestinian Prime Minister has been here. Our Prime Minister has been there. I have been there several times. We will customise specific programmes that are relevant for them, but they will take the lead on which programmes they're interested in and how Singapore can best address their needs.

So, I hope Members of the House will agree with me that this understated, more discrete, behind-the-scenes, helpful, respectful approach is more appropriate for us in Singapore.

Mr Yip Hon Weng.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Minister, for your response. I just want to talk a bit about humanitarian aid. The Minister mentioned that multiple countries and non-governmental organisations are already providing aid and providing relief. So, how does Singapore ensure our aid compliments rather than duplicates international efforts? And have we identified specific gaps in the international response where Singapore's niche support can add the most value?

And lastly, can the Minister explain why sustaining our humanitarian and diplomatic engagement in Gaza matters to Singaporeans, not as an act of compassion, but as a reflection of our identity as a small nation committed to peace and multiracial harmony?

There are many in international aid agencies involved and I would highlight first the UN itself, the UN's Work and Relief Committee, which has been doing work there for decades, in fact. I have mentioned the World Food Programme. I would also take reference from the hopefully soon-to-be established Transitional Authority.

It is for people on the ground to decide what is needed and to coordinate, and then we fit in. It is not for us to impose our idea of how aid should be delivered. So, again, I hope Members understand my position of not trying to be pushy, and not trying to aim for positions on boards, and not trying to excessively draw attention, but just to quietly and effectively work in the background.

The other supplementary question is why do we do this? And we do this because first it is an expression of Singaporeans' innate generosity and compassion. Second, I believe in fact, that Singapore does have some significant resonance in the Middle East. I have shared with this House before that when a Singapore delegation goes there, the diversity of the delegation – multi-religious, multiracial – has special resonance there. Because there you have an example of conflicts over land, but turbo-charged by appeals to religious and other tribal instincts.

The example that a Singapore, united, cohesive, in the midst of our great diversity, and able to stand on our own two feet and then, to generously help enhance other people's capacity to also stand on their own two feet, is something which I believe, does also reflect well on our society.

I think it reflects the basic decency, goodwill and generosity that exists in the hearts of all Singaporeans. So, that is why we do it.

But having said that, I would also add: there are many other trouble spots in the world. And right now, if you look at what is happening in Sudan, or even if you look at the sequela of what has happened in Syria, in Yemen, there are many other trouble spots, on which in due time, I think people will also hope that Singaporeans respond to accordingly.

Last supplementary question. Mr Fadli Fawzi.

Minister, 12 nations, including France and Japan, have set up an emergency coalition for the financial sustainability of the Palestinian Authority to support the effort to stabilise the Palestinian Authority's finances and ensure the continued viability of the two-state solution. In light of the Gaza Peace Plan, will Singapore now consider joining them in making financial contributions to the Palestinian Authority, and if not, why not?

I think it is premature, but if the need arises and if there is a specific programme, I will certainly be happy to share it with the House.

8 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the number of CPF members aged 65 to 67 years old who are still in employment; and (b) whether the Government is considering increasing the age limit for the Dependants' Protection Scheme from the current 65 years old.

9 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Manpower for each year in the past three years, what is the number of CPF members below the age of 65 whose Dependants' Protection Scheme coverage has lapsed due to non-payment of premium.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 8 and 9 together, please, as they are both about the Dependants' Protection Scheme (DPS)?

Please proceed.

As of 2024, 94,500, or 33% of Central Provident Fund (CPF) members aged 65 to 67, are in employment. We regularly review the DPS to ensure that it remains relevant to members.

In 2021, we raised the maximum age coverage of the DPS from 60 to 65. In taking this decision, we sought to strike a balance between providing insurance protection for members’ dependants for a longer period, while at the same time, ensuring the adequacy of members' retirement savings. Raising the maximum coverage age beyond 65 would result in higher premiums due to higher mortality rates after age 65 and consequentially, would reduce members' savings for retirement.

The DPS lapse rates have held quite steady and low, at less than 0.2% in the past three years. All members will receive notifications via both SMS and mail if their CPF balances are insufficient and they can opt to pay their DPS premiums in cash. Members who have lapsed on their premium payments are given at least 60 days of payment grace period and a final notice before the DPS coverage is terminated. Those who wish to re-join the scheme can subsequently still apply to Great Eastern Life, which is the current administrator of DPS to do so.

Ms Mariam Jaafar.

Thank you, Minister, for your responses. I have three supplementary questions to my first Parliamentary Question and one supplementary question to my second Parliamentary Question.

On coverage for seniors above 65, my supplementary questions would be – I understand that there are implications in terms of premium cost, but more seniors are remaining in the workforce beyond 65. In fact, our own Re-employment Age has moved to 67. And they are supporting dependants, both children as well as seniors, with our increased life expectancy. So, would the Minister consider the current age limit to remain appropriate and fit-for-purpose, given the current realities?

Two, could the Minister share what actuarial studies have been done on the feasibility of extending DPS coverage to align with the current Re-employment Age and what the implications might there be for premiums? How much of an increase are we talking about?

And thirdly, if a broad-based approach is too costly, could the Minister consider more targeted approaches or optional DPS extension, perhaps at a higher premium? Because I think of the cost of not having coverage, if something bad happens and DPS is a great scheme. It would be great for those who are still in employment to benefit from it.

On the Parliamentary Question on non-payment, I appreciate the data that there is only 0.2%, which is quite comforting. Does the Minister have insights on the reason for non-payment? Is it mostly due to financial difficulties or is it lack of awareness? The Minister mentioned that members could apply, so, I am glad to know that there are grace periods. Could the Minister also consider additional safeguards, in terms of premium assistance and more flexible reinstatement arrangements to support people who really need it?

I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. I think there are a total of six supplementary questions; three for each one of the Parliamentary Questions. I will try to address all of them.

For above 65 coverage, alongside what actuarial studies have been done to align with the Re-employment Age and the suggestion of targeted approach, we are indeed considering this. As I have said, we constantly review these. At the next bound, some of the measures that we are looking at to see how we can align the coverage with the potential raising of that retirement age to 65 before 2030 and the Re-employment Age to 70 before 2030 – certainly, these are things that we will look at across, as a package.

I think the actuarial studies done thus far have shown that the premiums do go up quite disproportionately if we try to extend the cover beyond 65. But with the very fact that we are also rapidly ageing and the age of the workforce is also getting there, if we have a sizeable pool, looking at how that pooling of that premium can be spread across, I think extending coverage is certainly something that we are open to considering. We have not stopped reviewing this framework because we want to try to provide for the coverage for as long as possible. But we always have to balance between sustainability, affordability and also, ensuring that there is a sufficient sum left behind for the members to tap on when they are finally eligible for that payout, at age of 65 or 70, depending on how they choose.

With regard to the Member's point on non-payment, for those members whose DPS coverage has lapsed, about 75% of them are aged above 55 years old. Many of them are no longer working, or they were self-employed persons before. Thus, they do not have Ordinary Account contributions which could be used to pay for those premiums. And for those whose DPS coverage lapsed as of 31 December 2022, around 40% of them have reinstated or they have started new cover as of 31 December 2024. So, this has to be taken against the broader numbers. Today, there are over two million Singaporeans and Permanent Residents who are covered under DPS. And amongst the active CPF members between the ages of 21 and 65, 86% are covered under DPS. So, that number, that 75%, is of that 16% that we are really talking about. [Please refer to ​"Clarification by Minister for Manpower", Official Report, 15 October 2025, Vol 96, Issue 8, Correction By Written Statement section.]

There are obviously different types of assistance schemes that are available. Many of these members can also reach out to some of the social agencies to see what kind of help can be rolled out to them. What we are trying to do is to ensure that we can cover as broad-based a scheme as possible for all members if possible, but it would not be possible to cover every single one of them.

10 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry with electricity and gas tariffs set to rise for October to December period, what measures are being considered to support middle-income households and retirees who do not qualify for existing schemes such as the GST Voucher or Assurance Package, but who nonetheless experience financial strain from rising utility cost.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for the period from October to December 2025, these coming three months, electricity and town gas tariffs have increased slightly by 0.3% from the preceding quarter. This is due to higher imported fuel costs.

The majority of Singaporean households living in Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats, including middle-income households and retirees, receive the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Voucher, U-Save to offset their utilities bills. In addition, there are other schemes available to help with the cost of living, such as, the Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers and the Assurance Package. Residents who do not qualify for such schemes, who might nonetheless experience financial difficulties, may seek assistance from their local Social Service Office if they require assistance to meet basic needs.

Ms Jessica Tan.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do know that U-Save and GST vouchers are for those middle-income and those in public housing. My question was really for more the retirees who live in private properties, who do not have access or eligibility to these U-Save vouchers. While the increase is small in the light of high cost of living, it does impact our retirees. So, I would ask if there would be consideration of support schemes that could help our retirees who live in modest private property.

I thank Ms Tan for her supplementary question. For this year, for Budget 2025, all Singaporeans will also benefit from the SG60 package, which includes $600 to $800 in vouchers. Of course, there is also the personal income tax rebate. But for retirees, really, that may not apply that much to them.

The SG60 vouchers would also be given out to middle-income households and retirees. So, for retirees, those who are aged 60 and above, they are eligible for $800 in vouchers, and for those who are between 21 and 59, in the event that they are also retired after 55, they would be eligible for $600 in SG60 vouchers.

All Singaporean households are eligible for $800 in CDC vouchers, so these vouchers for this year itself will benefit around three million Singaporean adults, of which, around 1.1 million, about a third, are aged 60 and above. The CDC vouchers will benefit around 1.3 million Singaporean households. It will go some way in alleviating some of these concerns.

Looking forward, we are watching and monitoring the pricing of our imported natural gas very closely. With regard to the U-Save vouchers, while we put it out to help HDB households, we would also strongly ask for support from all of our Singaporeans to conserve energy because the more we provide in terms of grants or support, and if energy consumption continues to increase, for us over the long haul, it would be very difficult to sustain. I hope that gives the Member the reassurance.

11 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Acting Minister for Transport what accessibility and inclusion features will be incorporated into autonomous shuttle services to support wheelchair users, users who are not proficient in English, families with strollers, blind users and deaf persons.

In the initial pilot phase of the deployment, a safety operator, who will be on board the autonomous vehicle (AV) shuttle, can assist passengers. Ambassadors will also be on the ground to assist with boarding, alighting and journey planning. Only larger AVs like the eight-seater Robobus autonomous shuttle will be able to accommodate folded wheelchairs and strollers at the moment, but in time there will be more of such vehicles.

Safety is our key priority. We will work with the AV operators to consider the accessibility and inclusivity of AV rides for commuters with different mobility needs.

Ms Phua.

I thank the Senior Minister of State. My supplementary question is this: whether the Ministry and other Government agencies as well would seriously adopt the principle of universal design in the designing of services and their products and other offerings as well? The old model of design is really to accommodate, which is to design, for example, a standard vehicle, for average, then, after the pilot, add on as an afterthought, features for special groups, which can be costly and also can be clumsy.

The universal design mindset really suggests that from day one, designers, policy-makers and operators actually consider a larger audience, the overall users and then add in features – accessibility and inclusivity features – that will benefit, in this case, not just the disabled and the elderly, but also users with baby prams, heavy luggage or even trolleys. So, my supplementary question is therefore, would agencies, including Ministry of Transport, SMRT already does quite a bit of that, adopt this mindset and philosophy of universal design?

I thank the Member for her supplementary question, as well as her feedback. Indeed, we would like to do more for our commuters with different needs.

I would just like to add that for the AV shuttles, because at the current moment we are buying vehicles from the market and they are of a smaller size. Most of them now are five-seaters and, as a result of that, these very small number of vehicles – there are about 10 of them right now in this pilot phase – do not fully include all the design parameters that we would like to have to be able to serve as diverse a spectrum of needs of commuters as possible.

So, what we would like to do moving forward is that we will share this feedback that the Member has with the manufacturers of these AV shuttles and look at how to incorporate this right from the onset, rather than have to add on subsequently, which would add on cost, just as the Member has shared.

Separately, where we are able to do so, in terms of the infrastructure on the ground, whether it is at the pick-up and drop-off points or the bus stops, when we scale up the AV shuttles to a larger scale, with more vehicles and more AV shuttles on the roads, we will definitely adopt a universal design philosophy so that we do not have to add on subsequently, which would incur costs in terms of infrastructure.

12 Ms Gho Sze Kee asked the Acting Minister for Transport whether the Ministry would consider lowering the speed limit for bicycles on shared paths from the current 25 km/h for the safety of other path users.

The speed limit of 25 kilometres per hour for bicycles as well as other active mobility devices on shared paths is based on normal cycling speed and takes into account the rules of shared used and the safety of all users. Cyclists should slow down and give way to pedestrians, especially when approaching crowded places.

The Land Transport Authority (LTA) will continue to ensure path safety and conduct education campaigns and community engagement programmes regularly to promote gracious path sharing and safe behaviour.

Ms Gho.

Speaker, I have two supplementary questions for the Minister of State. To put things into perspective, 25 kilometres per hour would be about seven metres per second, and about 14 to 15 seconds for every 100 metres. That is roughly the speed of a very fit and casual jogger, somewhat like Mr Speaker, when you are running at full throttle. So, imagine that, Mr Speaker, the momentum of a bicycle. And this is what pedestrians, especially the elderly staying in Mountbatten and perhaps in other areas of Singapore, are facing right now.

So, in light of this, I will ask this question. Would the Minister of State not consider bicycles at that speed on a path shared by the elderly, young children and adults walking their pets, to be reckless as well? Should we not consider lowering the speed as a deterrent measure, as opposed to enforcement and education, especially when a lower speed limit will improve reaction time and safety?

Minister of State Baey. He is a faster runner. [Laughter.]

Thank you, Speaker, but even then, I do not run at 25 kilometres an hour.

I thank Ms Gho for her concern for the more vulnerable users on our paths. But I would like to explain that this speed limit of 25 kilometres an hour was derived by the Active Mobility Advisory Panel after extensive consultations with different users of our paths. So, the 25 kilometres an hour is for shared paths, which tend to be wider and allows for pedestrians or slow-moving users to keep to one side, which means to the left of the path, to allow for faster-moving device users to overtake them. So, if the users adhere to this code of conduct, we do allow the different users travelling at different speeds to co-exist harmoniously and safely.

In areas where the paths are narrower – those are what we call footpaths – the speed limit has been lowered to 10 kilometres an hour. And on these paths, devices which are motorised cannot be used. That means, only manual bicycles could be used, as well as for users of personal mobility aids. That means, these are for people with mobility issues.

We will continue to observe, monitor the situation; and where necessary, we could look at revising the rules on the speeds.

Mr Dennis Tan.

I do agree with the views expressed by the hon Ms Gho. I am respectfully of the view that I think 25 kilometres per hour, aside from those on road bikes, would be more appropriate for bicycle speed on the road rather than on a shared path. I think most bicycles, other than road bikes, do not travel as much as that speed on shared paths or even on the roads.

And I have a separate supplementary question. Mr Speaker, since 2017, when the Active Mobility Act was passed, I have said repeatedly in this House that to promote a safe and considerate riding culture, we need to have regular enforcement and adequate public education for all users, including cyclists.

Recently, the Minister of State mentioned that riders could, where necessary, overtake pedestrians on a shared lane by riding into the pedestrian-only lanes – if I hear him correctly from the last Sitting. I am concerned that this may be dangerous, especially riding at a higher speed of say, 20 to 25 kilometres per hour. So, may I ask Minister of State, how extensive are the current public education efforts being carried on the ground, that is, on the shared paths, especially the popular shared paths, to regulate use of all users of shared paths, including advising them to lower their speed, and can these ground outreach efforts be further enhanced?

LTA has rolled out public education campaigns since 2016. We reach out to community groups, schools, and this is important because we want users to develop good habits from young. So, yes, we will continue to reach out to as many groups as possible and targeting areas where there has been a lot of feedback or more observed higher speeds of cycling in those areas. We could work with grassroots, with resident groups, communities to do the outreach.

I would also like to emphasise that the speed limit is the maximum speed allowed. It is not the speed at which device users and cyclists should expect to sustain for any distances. So, when the path is crowded, there are obstacles in front, a slower-moving device or user in front, they should slow down and give way to them. That is the expectation. And if there are cases where riders or cyclists had been reckless, they will be taken to task.

I will just make a clarification to Mr Dennis Tan's supplementary question. When I said earlier, at a previous Sitting about allowing device users to overtake, these are for cases where there is a pedestrian-only path beside a cycling path. There is no pedestrian-only path beside a shared path. Just wanted to explain the difference in the way we design our infrastructure.

Last supplementary question, Mr Cai Yinzhou.

Thank you, Speaker. I would like to inquire on how, with footpaths being narrow, cyclists may be elderly themselves and navigating these obstacles, like running children or dog walkers, may be challenging for them as well. So, cyclist speed may not be the only factor of danger, but also the ability of these cyclists to navigate these obstacles.

My supplementary question is whether the Ministry will consider cycling pathways to be designed to co-exist on the road, especially in areas with high density of pedestrians or vulnerable individuals, like schools or silver zones.

Due to the space constraints, especially on road infrastructure, we do not build cycling paths on roads. Having said that, cyclists and device users can cycle on and can ride on the roads. This is allowed. And so, our approach has been building cycling infrastructure off roads. As I said earlier, where it is possible, we will separate the cycling paths and pedestrian-only paths. When the space is more limited, then we will have shared paths. And when it is even more limited, it will be just footpaths, and on footpaths, there are restrictions on what kind of devices could be used on those.

So, in order to allow for different users of our spaces to co-exist safely and harmoniously, we really need to build a culture of sharing, of gracious use of these spaces, and for everybody to understand the rules and abide by the rules. At the same time, we will carry out enforcement and take errant users to task for unsafe behaviours.

13 Ms Gho Sze Kee asked the Minister for Manpower in view of the growing uncertainty in the jobs market and the challenges faced by recent tertiary graduates, whether there are plans to review and recalibrate the foreign manpower mix to provide Singapore’s local workforce with better opportunities, particularly at entry and mid-level PMET positions.

Mr Speaker, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) constantly reviews our foreign workforce policies to ensure that our foreign workforce is complementary, and that Singaporeans will continue to have access to good job opportunities.

The updates are done annually and with key changes announced at MOM’s Committee of Supply. For instance, we regularly update our Employment Pass (EP) and S Pass qualifying salaries to keep pace with local wage growths, and it avoids undercutting local salaries. New EP applicants aged 23 years old must earn at least S$5,600 to qualify, and this is significantly above the median wage of our fresh graduates. We also refresh the Complementarity Assessment Framework for EP applications annually, keeping in line with market conditions. For example, we will add or remove occupations on the Shortage Occupation List based on industry shortages and industries’ efforts to develop the local pipeline.

We strike a very careful balance when reviewing these policies. We need to provide businesses sufficient access to talent so that we can continue to maintain Singapore’s global competitiveness. In particular, foreign professionals help to attract foreign investments and multinational corporations that create a large number of good jobs for Singaporeans. While foreign-owned companies account for 20% of all companies in Singapore, they employ one-third of the resident workforce, and these include our fresh graduates as well. Foreign firms also create business for local firms, who in turn create jobs for Singaporeans.

MOM will continue to review our policies holistically. We will continue to invest heavily in our local workforce to support Singaporeans across all economic climates.

14 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for National Development in the recent HDB Build-To-Order (BTO) and Sale of Balance Flats (SBF) launch in July 2025, (a) what is the success rate for first-time applicants who are eligible for the Family Care Scheme (Proximity); and (b) what is the breakdown of successful applicants based on their number of prior unsuccessful attempts.

Mr Speaker, the Family Care Scheme (Proximity), or FCS (Proximity), was introduced in July 2025. Under FCS (Proximity), married and single children who choose to live with or near their parents, or the other way round, can enjoy priority access to flats launched in the Housing and Development Board's (HDB’s) Build-To-Order (BTO) and Sale of Balance Flat (SBF) exercises.

The flat selection process for the July 2025 BTO and SBF exercises will commence from November 2025. For the BTO exercise, about six in 10 first-timer families and two in 10 first-timer singles who applied under FCS (Proximity) received a queue number.

For the SBF exercise, about seven in 10 first-timer families who applied under FCS (Proximity) received a queue number.

Sir, among first-timer family FCS (Proximity) applicants who received a queue number in the July 2025 sales exercise, about eight in 10 were on their first attempt, and one in 10 were on their second attempt.

Ms Tan.

I thank the Minister for the reply. I just wanted to give some context in terms of my supplementary question. The reason why I asked this is I have seen several appeals with regard to the launch of the Simei Symphony that is part of that launch. Many families were coming to appeal because they do want to stay with their families.

I noted Minister's point about the numbers in terms of those who had a queue number because I had several residents who came to see me who had many more attempts, some with three or four attempts at BTO applications, and were not successful. To give the context, for inter-generational caregiving needs, many do want to stay within the area, not just in Simei, for my residents of course, but even in the East they have been applying. Given that these proximity schemes or other priority schemes are giving residents more ballot opportunities, would the Ministry of National Development consider refinement to the balloting process that would allow the Proximity Scheme to give real priority for those who have attempted several times within an area that is close to their family, or may be, perhaps, even in extending the proximity area, may be beyond the four kilometre?

Mr Speaker, I understand the concerns that Ms Jessica Tan has raised. Indeed, we do want to encourage more families to stay near their family members, whether parents or children, so that the family can provide mutual support to one another.

HDB offers a range of priority schemes to enhance the ballot chances of certain groups. Please allow me to just share a little bit with the House.

For example, all first-timers receive one additional ballot. First-timer parents and married couples, eligible families receive an additional ballot. In other words, three ballots in total if they apply for a 4-room or a smaller standard flat. The first-timer families who have been unsuccessful in two or more BTO applications for standard 4-room smaller flats will receive an additional ballot chance for each subsequent BTO application for a standard flat. So, we do want to help them if they continue to apply for a standard flat, 4-room or smaller, to keep increasing their chances if they are unsuccessful.

On top of this, we give priority also under various schemes to further enhance chances of various groups. Of our available BTO flat supply, we set aside 40% for the Family and Parenthood Priority Scheme (FPPS) and 30% for the FCS (Proximity) that I just shared in my main reply. And the purpose is to support young parents and those who wish to live near their parents. Those who qualify for both schemes would be balloted twice. If you qualify for both, first, you ballot under FPPS and if you are not successful, then you have another go under FCS (Proximity).

Those who are unsuccessful in both ballots are then balloted again as a first-time, public applicant.

So, we offer higher chances to certain groups of buyers but to be candid, balloting outcomes cannot be guaranteed because there is an element of luck. This is especially so in popular projects, like the one that Ms Tan mentioned, and also in the larger flats such as 5-room flats or SBF flats, which the supply is smaller but the demand is high.

To improve the chances of more people being able to get the flat, we are building more flats. We are trying to launch more. We just announced the October launch, more than 9,000 flats, in total, including Shorter Waiting Time flats. And we want to encourage applicants to also consider applying for projects where there are larger supplies because the application rate would then be better.

During the application process, the application rates by estate and flat type would also be provided online and updated multiple times a day.

15 Ms Lee Hui Ying asked the Minister for National Development what support measures does HDB take to speed up the completion of those HDB developments that have a longer waiting time, particularly developments which are expected to take more than five years.

Mr Speaker, to help Singaporeans secure their homes more quickly, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) has introduced measures to reduce the waiting times for new Build-To-Order (BTO) projects. These include prioritising sites that are ready for immediate construction, adopting innovative procurement practices to shorten project duration, and working with authorities and relevant stakeholders to expedite approvals.

Through these efforts, close to 70% of flats launched in 2023 and 2024, as well as those that are launched thus far in 2025, had waiting times of four years or less. HDB has also committed to launch more Shorter Waiting Time flats, with waiting times of less than three years.

The construction time for each BTO project would vary based on the project’s attributes, such as the design complexity, the site conditions, the number of storeys. At each BTO sales launch, HDB would offer multiple housing projects at different locations, with different designs, flat types, prices and waiting times, to suit the varying needs of flat buyers. Because we do have a large group of different flat buyers with diverse needs. This information is made available at project launch so that buyers can make considered decisions when they are applying for their BTO flats.

Sir, HDB will continue to work closely with the project contractors and consultants to expedite construction works as much as possible, while maintaining the safety and well-being of our workers, as well as ensuring project quality of the flats.

Ms Lee.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. And I thank the Minister for the reply. I just have three supplementary questions. I think most BTO projects do complete on schedule or even before schedule. It is also in the interests of contractors to complete ahead so that they are able to recover and reinvest their capital faster.

So, would the Ministry, perhaps, consider creating an incentive system for contractors, to reward them when they complete projects materially ahead of projections while maintaining quality standards? It could be tax rebates or positive recognitions of their work.

Second, I received feedback from residents that in contrast to the recently newly announced and launched BTO developments which have much shorter waiting times, which is very much welcomed by residents, there are also some BTO developments, also in Yishun, that have a longer waiting time of around five to 10 years. So, some future homeowners now have a delayed life plans – whether it is starting a new family or moving into a new home. So, they are actually having a delayed life plans on that part. So, does HDB actually have measures to support or give recourse to these home buyers?

And third, would the Minister consider allowing more plots of land, especially those that are projected to have longer development periods to start development ahead of the BTO schedule so that then they are able to then have a perceived shorter waiting time of flats for future time buyers? In other words, instead of Build-To-Order, we have Build-Before-Order, so BBO?

Mr Speaker, I do agree with the Member that where we can we want to try and shorten the waiting times for flat buyers. My guidance to my colleagues in the Ministry of National Development and HDB is to build more and build faster so that we can keep up a robust supply of new HDB flats.

Sir, it is in the interest of contractors to complete projects ahead of schedule if they can because this allows them to recover and reinvest their capital more quickly. It also helps with the re-allocation of resources across projects that the contractors are undertaking. So, HDB will indeed continue to work closely with the agencies and the contractors to expedite the approvals and to support timely project completion.

We bring forward development where feasible to deliver more Shorter Waiting Time flats to Singaporeans. We have increased the supply of such flats from 2,800 last year to 4,690 this year – which exceeded our commitment of 4,500 – and we will continue to build more of such Shorter Waiting Time flats.

However, there are sites with longer development timelines because they may include sites that require more complex preparatory works which then limit how early we can start and we will continue to look at how we can optimise the timelines while ensuring a steady quality supply of homes.

Sir, we also recognise that longer waiting times can affect home buyers including those who are looking to start a family, those who have children. So, to help them, to support them HDB offers Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS) which provides a temporary housing option for eligible families while they wait for their BTO flats.

HDB has been ramping the supply of PPHS flats from 800 in 2021 to about 4,000 by the end of this year. As a result, the application rate has come down significantly and since June 2023, all eligible applicants who are married with a child aged 18 and below, including expectant parents, have been invited to select a PPHS flat.

16 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider a tiered approach to MediSave withdrawal limits as an enhancement to the MediSave 500/700 scheme by taking into account factors such as age and the number of chronic conditions under the Chronic Disease Management Programme (CDMP).

Mr Speaker, my response will also address the question for written answer previously filed by Mr Lee Hong Chuang for the Parliament Sitting on 25 September 2025.

MediSave is intended to help Singaporeans afford a range of healthcare needs. Two dominant ones are: managing chronic long-term diseases and larger, one-off costs associated with hospitalisations, which tend to be incurred later in life. Hence, MediSave withdrawal limits are reviewed regularly to judiciously balance between meeting current healthcare needs whilst preserving their MediSave savings for future healthcare needs.

The MediSave500/700 limits for treatment under the Chronic Disease Management Programme (CDMP) are already tiered. The lower $500 annual limit caters to patients with a single non-complex chronic condition while the higher $700 annual limit is for those with complex chronic conditions, including those with two or more CDMP chronic conditions.

For older patients aged 60 and above, they will also benefit from the Flexi-MediSave scheme, which allows them to withdraw up to an additional $300 annually for their outpatient medical expenses, including those under CDMP. This Flexi-MediSave annual limit will be increased from $300 to $400 from 1 October 2025.

The Ministry of Health will also be increasing the annual outpatient scan withdrawal limit from $300 to $600 with effect from 1 January 2026. This will also help defray medical expenses of Singaporeans including those with long-term medical needs and chronic diseases. We will continue to regularly review the MediSave scheme.

I will allow a short supplementary question. Dr Hamid Razak.

I thank the Minister of State for her reply. As we do screening for Healthier SG, we are bound to see increases in chronic diseases in younger adults as well. I just want to find out if the Ministry is tracking the burden of this disease by different age groups to better inform us of future changes to the Flexi-MediSave scheme.