Hansard, Tuesday, 4 November 2025

1 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) what is the intended duration of the Free Morning Off-Peak Rail Rides scheme on the North East Line (NEL); (b) whether the Government is committed to making the scheme permanent in order to drive a sustained shift in travel patterns; and (c) if so, whether that commitment is contingent on plans to further increase NEL peak-hour capacity, if any.

Mr Speaker, this reply also addresses related questions filed by Ms Poh Li San, Ms He Ting Ru as well as Ms Elysa Chen for subsequent Sittings.

The new free morning off-peak travel programme is intended to reduce peak hour crowding. We are piloting the free off-peak travel programme on the North East Line (NEL) and Sengkang-Punggol Light Rail Transit (LRT), which is currently the most well-used section of our Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) network. By shifting a small proportion of peak hour commuters who are able and willing to travel off-peak, we improve the commuting experience for those who still have to travel when it is most crowded. Redistributing the peak load also enables the overall capacity of the train line to be more efficiently used. Furthermore, a smaller peak load will reduce the impact of a train delay or disruption, if it happens.

When we introduced a similar free travel programme in 2013, about 7% of commuters shifted out of the morning peak. If we are able to achieve a similar and sustained result, we will not need to have additional resources to support higher commuter traffic before 7.30 am. The free morning off-peak travel programme will be fully funded by the Government. The level of Government funding required will depend on the eventual take-up rate and therefore, the effectiveness of the scheme. We will assess after a year before deciding whether to extend the scheme further.

Mr Chua.

Thank you, Speaker. Two supplementary questions for the Acting Minister. First, I understand from the CNA article that when speaking to the reporters back then, the Minister shared that the peak hour passenger load on the NEL is not close to the Land Transport Authority's (LTA's) operating performance standards. I was wondering if the Minister can elaborate on this, because in relation to an earlier Parliamentary Question I filed in September, I had asked about the maximum passengers per hour per direction and capacity utilisation during peak hours. So, if the Acting Minister can give us a sense of these numbers to understand where it is today and where is the ideal level that LTA is looking at.

The second supplementary question is in relation to the NEL today. Are there any technical limitations to increasing the frequency further in terms of reducing the time between trains or even, let us say, increasing it from the current six cars to seven or eight, depending on the possibilities?

Mr Speaker, on the hon Member's question on the peak hour passenger load, today, our operating performance standards are five passengers per square metre (sqm), which translates to about roughly 1,600 people per train on the NEL. In practice, the trains are not filled to the maximum because commuters decide not to board the train if it gets too crowded. But today, when we track the loading of the trains, it is in and around four passengers per sqm, which is not anywhere near the operating performance standard.

In terms of the technical limitations of improving the capacity of the train lines, the free off-peak travel programme is one of a suite of measures that we have to try to manage the overall capacity of the train in terms of optimising it, but also to reduce the peak level crowding.

Beyond that, we have been adding new trains to the NEL over the years. We have improved the signalling systems so that the headways between the trains have come down significantly. Outside of the train system, we have also added City Direct buses to bring people from their residence in the North East to the city centre.

As for whether or not we can add more train carriages, that is often suggested. In Singapore, we have not taken this step because most of our train lines are underground and if we have trains that are longer than the station length, firstly, you either have to shut down the line to expand the station or there would be fire safety considerations because the carriages that do not have the exit doors, passengers would have to come through a longer way to get out and typically, that is not recommended for us to do that. So, we have not taken that step yet.

What we have done is, for future lines, going forward, to see if we can budget for stations that are longer, in advance, and then, perhaps, in future, to only have smaller capacity trains and to extend the capacity of those trains when we need to.

Ms Poh Li San.

Thank you, Speaker. And thank you, Minister. I would like to understand with this shift of travel patterns to an earlier timing, would there be more resources required of the operator, SBS Transit? The other question is, what is the expected revenue leakage and is this sustainable in the long run?

I thank the hon Member for her question. In terms of more resources, as I had mentioned in my reply, if the outcome of the programme is around what we expect, which is hopefully about 7% of the peak hour load shifted to off-peak, then there is enough capacity during the off-peak and we will not need additional resources before 7.30 am.

The programme as of now, as a pilot, is fully funded by the Government. So, there are no additional resources that are needed. The revenue loss to the system is entirely covered by the Government. But what actually will be the Government expenditure on the scheme really depends on the take-up of the scheme.

Ms He Ting Ru.

Thank you, Sir. I have got two supplemental questions for the Minister. The first is, whether the programme is expected to result in net positive movement in congestion and what are the considerations? Taking into account that there is a quite a number of Build-To-Order (BTO) and condominium projects coming up, will that be taken into account when deciding whether to continue this programme?

The second supplemental question is, earlier, my colleague Mr Chua said about the 7% shift from when we did a similar project in 2013. I am just wondering what happens if we hit or we do not hit that 7%? What is the decision going to be either way?

Mr Speaker, the scheme that we have proposed is a series of continuous adjustments that we make to the public transport system in response to travel demand. On the whole, in the longer term, what agencies do is they do plan the transport infrastructure and the capacity of the transport infrastructure in tandem with housing developments. The time frames are long for an MRT line – it takes about 15 years to build. And housing is about five years for a new BTO estate. So, they try to make sure that is synchronised.

But in the short term, on a year-to-year basis, we also make continuous adjustments, whether it is adding new buses or in this case, proposing this free off-peak travel scheme. And I think overall the objective is to optimise the capacity of the train network, in particular, of specific trains during peak hours and to make for a better travel experience for our commuters.

So, we should see the free travel scheme as part of that series of continuous adjustments. As for whether or not, we will proceed with the scheme after a year, let us evaluate the scheme. The 7% was based off a previous scheme which had very different parameters. But roughly, if we hit something like that, I think we can think about whether or not to either continue with the scheme, extend it in its current form or adjust the parameters further or even fold it as a permanent feature into the system. That is really up for debate.

Ms Elysa Chen.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask two supplementary questions. First, whether the Ministry can shed light on the thought processes and data types selecting only the NEL and Sengkang-Punggol LRT for the free off-peak pilot – as you know, Bishan is a very crowded station with two lines as well – rather than other high congestion interchange stations.

My second question is to ask the Acting Minister for Transport whether the Ministry has conducted an accessibility impact assessment to determine whether the free off-peak scheme will disproportionately benefit able-bodied commuters who can flexibly adjust their travel timing, while vulnerable commuters such as persons with disabilities, elderly commuters and parents with young children who may have inflexible schedules due to work, school, medical appointments, or childcare constraints, will gain minimal benefit? And whether the Ministry will consider alternative subsidy mechanisms targeting vulnerable commuters with fixed schedules?

Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Member for her questions. The scheme applies to the NEL for two reasons. The first is that this is the most well used part of our MRT network at present and we think we want to see whether we can optimise the off-peak crowding on that line.

The second reason is that for parts of the NEL that are above Kovan station at the moment, they do not have an alternative route to the MRT network, until the Cross Island Line is built in five years time. And so, should there be a disruption and when there is a disruption, actually, the impact is quite significant to manage. Therefore, it is in our interest to try to reduce the peak hour crowding as much as we can.

Bishan, in relative terms, is slightly less crowded, more well-connected. So, for the moment, we have decided to keep the pilot to the NEL.

On the second question on accessibility, I fully understand the Member's concerns. Our objective with the scheme is to move a small proportion of those who are able and willing to move from peak hour travel to off-peak. And we are giving them a little incentive to do so. This will not only benefit these commuters, but it will also benefit the commuters who have no choice but to travel during the more crowded periods. It will benefit them through having less crowded trains, hopefully shorter waiting times for the trains and generally a better commuter experience for them. So, it is a win-win situation for all. And more broadly, beyond that, accessibility considerations are very much top of our priority when it comes to public transport. We will be very sure to focus on that.

Last supplementary question. Mr Ng Chee Meng.

I thank the Minister for this initiative. I thank the colleagues in LTA, SBS Transit for doing this good initiative.

Nevertheless, when you look at the loading in the North East area, I think this good initiative is but a interim measure – whether it is the buses where in the previous question, Senior Minister of State Sun Xueling told me that the buses loading versus MRT capacity is a great difference. So, my simple supplementary question is, with this good initiative, would the Seletar Line be accelerated?

Because, ultimately, with all the housing density being built up in the North East region, whether in Punggol or in Jalan Kayu, including Sengkang, I think fundamentally, a new MRT line would be needed. And if you can consider accelerating the Seletar Line, it would be very much appreciated by many residents in the North East region.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the hon Member Mr Ng Chee Meng for his question on the Seletar Line, which is not the first time he has asked this. As I explained earlier, the planning of an MRT line is in tandem with housing developments and travel demand. These are longer-term plans which the agencies work together very closely and we try to make sure that there is enough travel capacity to accommodate the demand for the long term. In the short term, we do make adjustments in terms of continual improvements, whether it is adding new buses to the transport corridor, whether it is introducing the free off-peak travel scheme. These are short-term adjustments that we try to make, to make sure that the commuters' travel demands can be adequately catered for.

The Seletar Line is being studied. I hope to have an update on this sometime across the turn of the year and most probably during the Committee of Supply period. But we will take a look at it and let LTA do its work to study the line.

2 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education what additional measures are being considered to address the high stress levels reported by teachers in the recent OECD TALIS 2024 study, particularly regarding support for their mental health and well-being.

3 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Minister for Education given the OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey 2024 finding that only 12% of teachers are aged under 30, with 40% of this group intending to leave within the next five years (a) whether the low proportion of younger teachers is an intended policy outcome; and (b) how are beginning teachers supported to manage the increasing demands of this noble profession.

4 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry is taking any specific steps to further reduce non-instructional duties for teachers, especially marking and administrative work; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider employing full-time employees to assist teachers in communications and event management, amongst other duties, in order to allow teachers to focus on teaching and coaching our children.

5 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Education in light of the findings by the OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2024 dated 7 October 2025 about the increasing complexity of the teaching profession, what are the specific aspects of the teaching profession in Singapore identified by the Ministry with potential for immediate improvement, especially for teachers' welfare.

Mr Speaker, my response will address the questions raised by Members to understand the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2024 findings and the current support systems and measures in place to manage teacher workload and well-being. May I have Mr Speaker's permission to answer oral Question Nos 2 to 5 and written Questions Nos 45 to 47 on today's Order Paper?

Please proceed.

Thank you, Sir. My response will also cover related oral and written Parliamentary Questions set down for today and subsequent Sittings.

Sir, let me begin by affirming what our teachers believe in – that teaching is, at its heart, a profoundly human endeavour. A teacher's responsibility is significant, as it involves nurturing students and shaping their futures. Our teachers take great pride in their work and demonstrate a strong sense of professionalism and dedication.

Our educators often go far beyond their formal duties because they see their students' growth and well-being as their responsibility. While we appreciate and applaud their passion, we also want to ensure that such commitment does not result in unsustainable workload for our teachers.

Members asked about the teachers' role and how the Ministry intends to support teachers with their non-teaching workload. Members also asked about the use of independent or externally verified studies to validate reported teacher workload hours and if the Ministry conducts regular checks of teacher workload.

We recognise that teaching, like many professions, comes with its own set of challenges and stressors. The 2024 Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS), which is a study run independently by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), found that Singapore teachers reported longer working hours per week compared to the OECD average. These longer hours are reported because Singapore teachers spend their time differently from many of their OECD peers. While classroom teaching hours are shorter, our teachers spend time on other important activities such as lesson preparation, co-curricular activities (CCAs) and professional development. These activities are critical to their effectiveness in providing holistic education for our students.

TALIS, being the largest international teacher survey, is a useful benchmarking tool, but it has its limitations. It is conducted once every six years and surveys a representative sample of only our lower-secondary teachers. In contrast, the Ministry of Education (MOE) internally monitors the workload of our teachers more regularly – across all grade levels: primary, secondary, junior college and centralised institute – through surveys, polls and various forms of staff engagement. This allows us to track closely and develop a more holistic understanding of teacher workload trends and issues, so that we can adjust our policies and programmes, as necessary. As we had said in a written Parliamentary Question reply to this House on 14 October this year, our data shows that, over the years, teacher workload has remained stable in terms of total hours, at an average of 53 hours. However, we recognise that the complexity of a teacher's work has increased over the years.

Members asked how MOE aims to address the longer working hours and stresses faced by our teachers. MOE adopts a range of measures to manage teachers' workload and to support their well-being, which we review regularly. First, MOE's Teacher Work Management Framework provides our school leaders with a common set of principles and measures to guide equitable workload allocation, considering teachers' competencies and preferences. It emphasises transparency, trust and open communication in workload deployment. This is reviewed regularly in response to new developments.

Second, technology and artificial intelligence (AI) innovation. MOE is tapping on AI to help teachers work more efficiently and effectively. New AI and other tech tools in the Singapore Student Learning Space (SLS) for example, support teachers to plan lessons, as well as to mark, provide customised feedback and analyse students' responses. Digital platforms, like Parents Gateway, have reduced time spent on administrative tasks, such as collecting consent forms and medical certificates. And while Singapore has one of the highest adoption rates among OECD education systems for using AI, we recognise that it does not immediately translate to reduced work hours. Teachers need time to be trained to use these tools, be comfortable using them and to fully integrate these tools into their work practices.

Third, enhanced staffing support. On average, each school has about 85 teachers. In addition, each school is resourced with a team of allied educators performing functions, such as counselling and working with students with special educational needs. All schools have a dedicated administrative team overseeing general administrative matters, procurement, financial operations and logistics support. We have been increasing such support. Over the last 10 years, we have doubled the number of allied educators across all schools, from about 800 to 1,600, and also increased the number of administrative staff in each school, from six then, to around nine today. Furthermore, schools have the flexibility to procure manpower services such as coaches, CCA administrators and allied support for student well-being; as well as vendors to assist with administrative work, events management and student programmes. We will continue to review the number of non-teaching staff needed in schools to effectively support our teachers and our students.

Fourth, system-level adjustments. When we introduce new policies and initiatives, or make policy changes, it increases workload for a season, as schools and teachers need to be briefed, trained and need time to adjust. Good change management is therefore key. MOE has given schools greater flexibility to pace the implementation of new system-wide initiatives, including deferring them if necessary, in order to manage staff workload. Hence, schools could decide when they would implement major changes, such as Full Subject-Based Banding as well as the EdTech Masterplan 2030.

Fifth, protected time policies. All schools provide protected vacation time during school holidays to ensure that our teachers can rest and recharge. Across the four blocks of school holidays, teachers can get around six to seven weeks of protected time and can take their vacation leave beyond the protected time, if they do not have any work in school. MOE also refreshed the School-Home Partnership guidelines at the end of 2024 to avoid parent-staff communication after school hours, except for critical emergencies. It also states clearly that teachers do not need to give their personal mobile phone numbers to parents and students. This is to minimise the blurring of lines between work and personal time.

Sixth, flexible work arrangements (FWAs). Since 2022, MOE has also provided guidelines on FWA for School-based Officers, while maintaining the duty of care towards our students. These include allowing teachers to report later at the start of the school day or leaving earlier before the end of the school day if they have no lessons or duties. Teachers are also allowed to work from home on a day where they have no classes or duties requiring their presence in school. Teachers who are unable to take on the full workload can apply for part-time working arrangements.

Seventh, well-being support. All schools have Staff Well-being Committees that are resourced with Staff Welfare Funds. Teachers have access to a range of resources such as well-being workshops, talks, webinars and online self-care materials. If they have well-being concerns, they are encouraged to raise them with their supervisors, school leaders or superintendents. They also have access to peer support, such as their school's wellness ambassadors and to free professional counselling through MOE's in-house counsellors or the whole-of-Government Employee Wellness Programme.

Members asked if the reduction of workload will be a key priority with key performance indicators set, and how well-being data informs staffing, performance evaluation and retention policies. MOE takes a holistic approach to monitoring teacher well-being rather than using singular metrics like work hours. We regularly track a range of indicators including job satisfaction, retention rates and stress levels and also, engage with MOE teachers' unions to get feedback and suggestions. This approach allows us to ensure timely interventions to support teacher well-being. Apart from broad-based measures to support the profession, when we receive school-specific feedback, we will also implement targeted measures to address these issues in those schools.

We are encouraged by the commitment shown by our teachers over the years, in spite of the growing complexity of the role. The mean annual resignation rates of teachers have remained stable at around 2% to 3% over the past few decades. TALIS 2024 also found that many of our teachers felt valued by society and see teaching as an attractive career choice. Based on the results from MOE's staff engagement survey last year, teachers' perceptions of work-life balance support were comparable to those across the wider Public Service.

I thank Members of this House as well as members of the public, for their concern for our educators. Indeed, our individual and collective attitude towards educators will determine whether we can continue to attract and retain good educators.

Beyond MOE and our schools, parents and other stakeholders also play an important role in supporting our teachers' well-being. By working collaboratively with schools, respecting educators and maintaining realistic expectations about the responsibilities of teachers, parents can also help create an environment where our teachers can focus on what they do best – educating and nurturing our children.

I would like to encourage parents and in fact, all of us to recognise and appreciate our educators who dedicate themselves daily to nurture young minds. As a society, let us cherish our educators' contributions each and every day. For when we honour those who teach our children, we strengthen the foundation upon which our nation's progress rests.

Let me close by saying this: having highly professional and caring educators, who are deeply committed to shaping the lives of our children and youths, is one of Singapore's reservoirs of strength. I thank all our teachers and allied educators for the good work you have done – seen and unseen. And I thank all parents and members of the public for your support for our schools and our teachers. We appreciate our teachers and we are committed to working with you to nurture and guide our next generation.

Dr Wan Rizal.

Mr Speaker, I would like to get your permission to ask beyond two supplementary questions, because I have asked quite a number of questions.

Yes. Go ahead, but keep it short.

Thank you, Sir. So, I want to first appreciate the Minister for sharing the efforts taken by the Ministry to protect our teachers, for their well-being, and of course, how they have been treated in schools all this while. I have gotten a number of on-the-ground feedback, including those with dialogues through the Singapore Teachers' Union (STU), where I am an advisor for, and we have had very good conversations about how we want to improve teachers' well-being and how we can protect them further.

And while many support and welcome the efforts done by the Ministry, one pain point that keeps cropping up is the workload. And we have heard from Minister on how we have continued to monitor. But they have shared progressively that, although things have changed, it is similar still, because you move the pieces around, but the plate is still as much. So, there are some concerns, and I would like to ask further.

The Minister talked earlier about how he has done some research and we know OECD's survey is not ours, but we have continually done more, to check on our teachers. Has the Ministry conducted any recent workload audits, so that we can pinpoint exactly where this pressure of workload really comes from? They have mentioned that the bulk is the non-teaching part, so can we work on something to maybe reduce that further?

The Minister also mentioned the use of AI, which I believe has helped teachers a lot, but it has also added a layer of complexity to how they do things. And I wonder whether this could also be considered in us trying to reduce the workload.

Going forward, can we explore a white space, where we put a fixed guideline throughout the different schools to protect core teaching time. The Minister mentioned earlier, they teach a certain amount of hours, but it is the bulk of whatever happens after that, that is the one that really needs some protection. And I hope that the Minister could find some model to help them in that regard.

I think the STU has certain considerations too, so I think it is wonderful if we can work further on this.

And the Minister mentioned earlier how we have decentralised, such that different schools will have different approaches. I think that is necessary, given the demographics of the different schools. But would you consider in this regard certain schools with slightly different needs? For example, they have a higher number of need for counselling, they need more para educators to be on board. Would the Ministry consider giving some schools a lot more support in this regard?

So, I thank the Minister again, for sharing the efforts in protecting teachers' well-being and I want to appreciate the teachers too. We are coming towards the end of the year and I want to appreciate the good work they have done over the whole year.

I thank the Member for his series of questions, which reflects his deep engagement with the union, with educators and with members of the public on the state of teaching in Singapore. Indeed, as I said, we do not just rely on TALIS, which is an OECD study. We have our own internal reviews on a regular basis on a whole variety of issues, including teacher workload, and the various measures that were outlined earlier – and I would not repeat all of them – are in reality, a response to the identified areas of workload which we can moderate or adjust.

So, some of it involves hiring more and we have announced in July this year that we are going to ramp up the recruitment of teachers. I mentioned that over the years we have moved some responsibilities away from teachers towards allied educators, like counsellors, special educational needs (SEN) officers, administrators, vendors and others. We have given schools resources to be able to bring in more vendors, if necessary, to help them to organise the activities.

So, those are the measures that are in response to a deeper understanding of the issues that the teachers face. And we are committed to continue this work and continue to implement new measures to help to allow our teachers that space to teach.

I would say that teaching today, if you ask any teacher, is a lot more holistic. It is not just about in-classroom teaching of a core subject or a hard subject. Even in the teaching of a hard subject, I think the Member will recognise that we are infusing 21st Century Competencies through the way that the teaching is carried out – through field trips, through studies, in subjects where appropriate, we infuse even values education, and Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) into some of these subjects.

And so, teaching being more holistic, is no longer just found in the classroom, but also in CCA and CCE, and in a whole range of other activities that enable our teachers to mould and nurture our students holistically – not just cognitively, but affectively, in terms of their emotional well-being, in terms of their skillsets, in terms of their executive functioning, in terms of their core values that help them to navigate society and the uncertain future world.

That is one. And of course, by helping our teachers with tools to prepare their material – standardised material in SLS – so they do not always have to prepare their own material, they can use some of that and adjust. We also provide AI tools, not just administratively to help them with administrative workload, but also to help them augment their teaching, augment their marking, augment their ability to give feedback to their students.

I just want to refer the Member back again to the various measures I articulated earlier. The Member asked whether we give our schools more resources based on needs. I think, absolutely. There was a Parliamentary Question sometime back where Members asked if schools can get more allied educators based on the profile of their students. For example, if they need more SEN officers or more counsellors, we are able to redeploy the existing pool and steer them towards schools that may have a greater need, whether secular or for a season.

I see many hands. I am only going to call Members who have filed questions on this. So, for those who did not, you do not need to raise your hands. Mr Shawn Loh.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My supplementary questions will be shorter than Dr Wan Rizal's.

I would appreciate that. Dr Wan's supplementary questions were pretty long.

Thank you. I thank the Minister for Education for his response, and I also want to declare that I am the new advisor to the STU, as well as the Education Services Union.

It is a common refrain from many teachers that one hour in the classroom is more tiring than one hour in the office. I would venture to extend that to say that one hour in the classroom is much more tiring than one hour in Parliament. And that is important. Because it is very concerning when TALIS, not just notes that teachers on average work 47 hours a week, but that the number has not gone down over the last two seasons of the survey over the last decade. Whereas across Singapore, for full-time workers, the average hours worked went down from about 47 hours to about 44 hours. So, we should all be rightfully concerned about our teachers.

To that end, I have two supplementary questions. The first one is for beginning teachers. For beginning teachers, the survey noted that the proportion of teachers was low and that many were intending to leave. So, my question to the Minister is whether the low proportion is a feature of MOE's hiring policy. Is it because it is about low recruitment or is it about high attrition? And if it is the latter, what is the Ministry doing about it?

The second and last question is about non-teaching workload. I fully agree with the Minister that non-teaching workload that leads to educational outcomes are important. Our teachers should do that, like for CCAs. Because teachers do not just teach, they educate. But there are also non-teaching workloads that do not necessarily lead directly to educational outcomes – procurement, for example, and other administrative work. It seems like a perennial bugbear, notwithstanding the Minister's assurance, that the amount of resources to each school has gone up. I would like to ask the Minister, why is this so? Is it because the workload has gone up more than the resources given to the schools?

I thank the Member for his questions and for his concern for our teachers. I said earlier in my speech that both TALIS, as well as our surveys show that while teachers' workload is high – it is indeed so and working hours are long – they have been stable over the past number of years, and we are working hard to focus our teachers' precious time on teaching holistically. Where possible, we help them to be more productive and effective, help them to shed some of the administrative tasks and what the Member calls, non-core teaching functions to allied educators and others. So, that work continues.

So, why is it that the number of working hours remains at this level and remain stable over the past number of years? I think Members will also need to look at the context. Over the past few years, we have made a number of policy changes. Teaching, as I said today, is a lot more holistic. There is a lot more teaching beyond the classroom. There is CCA, through which we teach leadership, sportsmanship, empathy and so on, the 21st Century Competencies. And in short, we have made many education-related moves over the years to strengthen our education system.

So, Full Subject-Based Banding only recently kicked in and there are a lot of things to be done in order to allow our students at secondary level to be able to learn at their pace. Indeed, it creates more work, but one which teachers recognise benefits our students.

We implemented an EdTech Masterplan 2030 to help support our teachers and our students in learning using technology. Not just learning using technology, but learning with technology. We have been talking about AI in education as well, so that will of course, create additional workload in terms of briefing, understanding, tinkering, learning, workshopping, practising, mastering and then we start to reap the results.

We made changes to the PSLE system. That, of course, creates additional work, but again for a purpose that supports the education system.

We made changes to refresh our 21st Century Competencies and how it is infused into our lesson plans and in our curriculum and in holistic education. That, of course, also requires all our schools, all our teachers and all our departments, not just in the headquarters (HQ), but particularly in our schools, to make changes.

And I can go on and on about all these things that have been done over the last few years that will increase the workload for a season, or some may also increase workload secularly. This is because education is more holistic and our teachers also have to contend with a changing demographic of parents and the different aspirations of our students.

So, all in, being able to keep workload at that level, despite doing all these important things, I think is a reflection of how these measures have worked. But we need to do more in order to make further improvements to the workload and stress on our teachers.

On beginning teachers, the Member asked why the proportion of beginning teachers has fallen through the TALIS report; he cites that. Well, in 2018 to 2024, with falling cohorts and a maturing workforce, we had reduced recruitment to some 650 to 700 teachers a year, in order to fill in the gaps in certain subjects and to replace retiring teachers. But in July this year, we announced that we will ramp up recruitment of teachers going forward to some 1,000 teachers or more per year.

Ms Valerie Lee.

I thank the Minister. I have two supplementary questions. Has the Ministry actively conducted studies on other countries on how they manage this topic of time management for teachers? If so, which countries are they, and have there been anything that is implemented in Singapore? The second question is, what targeted initiatives are there being planned to reduce teacher attrition rates, particularly among our younger educators who may feel overwhelmed by workload and pressure?

Through TALIS, we have a very useful comprehensive teacher survey study across a large number of OECD countries and that is a very useful benchmarking tool. It is not just survey results, but they also go into some qualitative understanding of each jurisdiction. That, of course, complements our comparative study of other jurisdictions to continually improve. So, that is the response to her first question.

To the Member's second question about beginning teachers' attrition, we support them through inductions, through mentoring in the first few years, through more supportive environments in school culture, focusing on professional development to enable our beginning teachers to be able to navigate, what will inevitably be a steep learning curve in teaching and in fact, in all professions.

We also need to accommodate, adjust and respond to a changing demographic with different aspirations of work and life, and so, in that regard, having more flexible work arrangements, including part-time teaching, having various options for teachers to adjust their school day, specific to their own responsibilities and specific to the school environment. I mentioned quite a number of them earlier, for example, coming to school a little later, if there is nothing right up in the morning, leaving once their teaching and other duties are done, and so on. So, we will continue to find ways to make sure that our scheme of service continues to respond to a changing demographic.

Ms Hany Soh.

Thank you, Speaker. The TALIS findings underscore our Singapore teaching profession as innovative and respected, yet burdened by the demands that could potentially erode long-term sustainability, particularly our early career educators. In this aspect, I have three supplementary questions for the Minister.

First, do teachers appraisal and progression factor in non-teaching duties, such as projects and CCAs? The second supplementary question concerns whether the Ministry has sought teachers' feedback on the demands that they face from students' parents and whether the situation has improved with the introduction of the Parents Gateway communication platform, as shared by the Minister earlier? And finally, I am not sure if I caught it, in the various measures that the Minister shared earlier, in relation to supporting the young, budding teachers, whether we are prepared to consider to include a scheme like a mentorship between senior and more junior teachers, as a form of buddy system, encouraging and providing the necessary support and guidance to the young educators?

I think I will address the Member's third question first. I did mention earlier that mentoring, on top of induction programmes and other professional development programmes, are in place for beginning teachers – or what she mentions as novice teachers.

In response to her first question on appraisal, we do take into account the teachers' holistic work as well as performance – teaching, CCAs, projects and so on.

In terms of whether we do surveys of teachers or engage teachers to better understand the relationship between them and parents, the answer is yes – through dialogues, through feedback from STU and other teachers' unions, through our well-being surveys, we get a better understanding of the changing demographic of parents today and their expectations of their children and teachers in school and out of school.

Hence, as a result, you see changes such as the Parents Gateway, implemented a number of years ago, School-Home Partnership as well as MOE's Engagement Charter, which sets out clearer boundaries and expectations, and draws clearer lines between teachers and parents – so that we can have a good productive, holistic relationship and partnership for the benefit of our children.

Mr Kenneth Tiong, I know you have filed a Parliamentary Question for this tomorrow.

Thank you, Speaker. Two supplementary questions for the Minister. Firstly, what are MOE's target operational outcomes for AI adoption? Surely, the Ministry must have a direction or goals, whether it is fewer hours, better allocation of time from administrative duties to teaching, or something else. Without that, how do we measure whether AI adoption is achieving the desired outcomes?

The second supplementary question: the Minister said that the workload has been stable at 53 hours per week. Does MOE believe that this is sustainable in the long term? And if not, what is the target number of hours that MOE is working towards?

I thank the Member for his questions on AI. I mentioned earlier that AI tools, once you introduce them, there is work created when you introduce AI tools. In fact, there is work created when you introduce any productivity tool. At the NIE70 conference, we also had AI experts from abroad who cautioned that when you introduce AI tools, there is hidden work that is created. Some of it is seasonal. Some of it may be secular. But if these are tools that are productive in nature that help save effort, reduce time spent on certain things in order for the teacher or the worker to be able to do more higher value-added things and divert the time to things that they feel are more important, then the necessary pre-condition is that one gets familiar, understands and then gradually masters and gets familiar with the tools, and then you start to reap the benefits.

So, there is a learning curve. There is an implementation curve and an operationalisation curve before we can reap the benefits. And it is still early days. We are infusing AI into teaching, not just as a productivity tool, but in order for us as an Education Service to be able to teach our children what is AI, teach them how to use AI, teach them or enable them to learn with AI, and also to learn beyond AI. So, all this does requires change management, over and on top of the School Cockpit and suite of tools, AI and tech in nature that enable our teachers to do more with limited time.

In terms of the workload, I mentioned in response to another Member earlier that the stability of our working hours – not that we crow about it; certainly, those are long hours and we need to continue to work collectively at it and I think, on both sides of this House, we all recognise and appreciate our teachers putting in all this effort for the benefit of holistic education of our children – but there has been a whole series of education reforms and changes over the years. A number of measures I mentioned earlier have helped to moderate the increase in working hours. But we are at it, we keep at it and continue to roll out reviews and changes that will help to moderate our teachers' overall working hours and their work-life balance.

Dr Choo Pei Ling, I know you had a question for tomorrow's Sitting as well.

I have three supplementary questions. One, as schools differ in size and profile, how does MOE ensure that requests for additional support staff, such as administrative assistants or counsellors, are prioritised fairly and matched to the unique needs of each school? Two, are best practices from schools that have successfully reduced teacher workload being shared so that other schools can learn and adopt these methods? Three, how are insights from these regular workload reviews translated into practical adjustments at the school level, so that teachers feel the impact directly in their day-to-day work?

I thank the Member for her three questions. The first, I think I have addressed that in a reply to one of the Members earlier that, based on the specific needs and the profile of each school, if there are additional resource requirements, they can raise them to their superintendents, zonal directors and to HQ, and we will see how to provide support to help them address those needs.

The second is best practices. Certainly, through the Schools Division, our principals, school leaders and our superintendents share best practices, not just in terms of workload reducing measures, but also pedagogical and teaching methods as well. We have network communities of practice that enable our educators in different fields, as well as our administrators, to be able to share ideas and best practices with one another. So, collectively, we improve as a system.

And lastly, the Member, I believe, asked how we ensure that these measures are properly implemented. Again, there are a range of supervisory measures, but ultimately, we give our school leaders autonomy and discretion to apply these measures to address needs and circumstances in their institutions.

Mr Jackson Lam, did you raise your hand earlier? No. Okay, Dr Hamid Razak.

Thank you, Speaker. I really appreciate the Minister setting the boundaries for clearer parent-teacher communication. However, boundaries can only do so much when it comes to behavioural change. I am wondering if the Ministry would consider perhaps setting up frameworks to engage parents to set clearer communication guidelines as well as perhaps shared communication platforms, which parents can then engage with should they have concerns about their children? This is because practices may vary between teachers and that might incite some degree of peer influence in terms of responding to parents, especially with their own personal phones for teachers, and parents might have overt concerns about their children, which may also vary between parent groups. So, more than boundaries, my question is whether the Ministry has further measures or frameworks that can be useful to engage parents to enhance this parent-teacher communication?

I thank the Member for his concern about the anxiety of parents as well as the stressors on our teachers. Indeed, parents are the first teachers of our children, and our teachers really work closely and seek to have a close partnership with our parents in order to ensure more holistic education of our children.

I mentioned earlier that we have an MOE Engagement Charter, together with the School-Home Partnership framework. It is not just an internal document, it is also shared, particularly with parents as well as with the public, so that we understand how to navigate that relationship. All of us are concerned about our children but we also need to enable our teachers to perform their tasks and to be able to support their children in the class.

And therefore, apart from these two guidelines and frameworks, we also have parent support groups. We have regular communication. It may vary from school to school, between school leaders, level heads with parents, either en masse, face to face, person to person, in a group, or virtually as well. So, these are ways that enable a constant relationship, a constant communication between our schools and our parents.

Ms Elysa Chen, I know, like Dr Hamid Razak, you also filed a Parliamentary Question for Thursday's Sitting. So, go ahead.

I did, thank you Speaker. I would like to thank the Minister also for acknowledging the increasing complexity of a teacher's work. And to follow up, I would like to ask the Minister what safeguards are in place to ensure that internal workload surveys capture the full range of non-teaching duties, including event planning, meetings and administrative work.

And second question: would MOE clarify whether teachers on the teaching track can achieve promotion to General Education Officer 5A and beyond, based solely on classroom teaching excellence, pedagogical innovation and student mentorship, without needing to chair committees or lead school-wide events and nationwide initiatives.

Last question: of the teachers promoted to senior teacher or lead teacher positions at the schools, what proportion held non-teaching administrative portfolios, such as committee chairmanships, non-subject Head of Department positions or Year Head roles prior to the appointments, as opposed to solely professional development portfolios?

The Member asked three questions. For the second and third question, they are HR- and statistics-related. I would just encourage the Member to file a written Parliamentary Question and we will give her that data.

The Member's first question is about safeguards to ensure that our MOE surveys capture accurate data. We have a large teaching workforce – primary, secondary, junior college, centralised institute – and the surveys have a very high response rate. Something like more than 90% of our teachers respond because they know that if they give us accurate information, it will enable our policy-makers to better roll out measures that support them.

And so, to help do this, in our surveys, we have clear guidelines and instructions on how to itemise the workload for different kinds of work, both in classroom and outside classroom, pedagogical as well as administrative. We also provide worked examples that enable our teachers, particularly those who are doing surveys for the first time, to better understand what we are trying to capture. And of course, as with many surveys, there is also a catch-all – that means, anything else, please let us know so that we do not risk missing anything out. And of course, when you average it out, when you then look at it specifically, you then have a very good set of data that enable policy-makers to work.

We are moving on. We have already spent an hour and we are only at Question No 5.

6 Ms Gho Sze Kee asked the Coordinating Minister for Public Services and Minister for Defence (a) what have been the recent trends in the number of full-time National Servicemen (NSFs) declaring psychological or mental health conditions prior to enlistment or seeking support while in service; and (b) what measures are in place to ensure appropriate support for those with real needs.

Mr Speaker, the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) has an established mental health support system for its National Servicemen (NSmen). Then Senior Minister of State for Defence, Mr Heng Chee How, provided a comprehensive description of the system in his response to Parliamentary Questions from Mr Desmond Choo and Dr Wan Rizal on 7 March 2024. The Member can refer to that reply for the comprehensive system.

That said, let me provide some updated figures. The proportion of pre-enlistees detected to have mental health issues was 9% in 2024. For our Full-time NSF, 11% sought help for some form of mental health-related issues in 2024. While the figures vary year to year, there has been a general upward trend over time, similar to our national youth mental health trend.

The SAF will continue to work closely with families and relevant agencies to support our servicemen's mental well-being and health.

Ms Gho Sze Kee.

One supplementary question, please. Because the Central Manpower Base is administratively under the Ministry of Defence and handles the pre-enlistment of all uniformed services, I would like to ask the Minister of State, in light of the recent suicide attempt of a Singapore Police Force NSF using his own service arms, are there any plans to include psychological screening as part of the battery of pre-enlistment procedures?

I thank the Member for her question, and her care and concern for our NSFs. Today, the medical examination of pre-enlistees already includes screening for mental health conditions. Those with mental health conditions will be reviewed by our in-house psychiatrists. If it is assessed that they may pose harm to themselves or others, they will be deferred from NS until their conditions have improved and they pose no other risk to themselves or to their fellow NSFs.

These assessments are made by our in-house professionals, guided by our SAF Psychiatry Specialist Advisory Board. They are made up of experts from our hospitals. NSFs with mental health issues who are able to serve will receive additional monitoring while in service.

We recognise that mental health issues can surface later after the pre-enlistment stage. The SAF has a mental health support system in place to detect and support service personnel with mental health issues. This may include psychological first aid training for recruits to provide support for their buddies and training for our commanders. Likewise, the Home Team has a similar system.

7 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Government has received any information from platform workers about delayed or missing CPF contributions when they join a new platform operator; and (b) if so, whether the Ministry will consider reviewing its operational processes and introduce measures to ensure that CPF contributions are properly made.

Mr Speaker, since the enactment of the Platform Workers Act this year, the Central Provident Fund (CPF) has been closely monitoring the implementation of CPF contributions for platform workers. There were some teething issues as platform operators adjusted to the new requirements. This included instances where platform operators declared inaccurate earnings that resulted in platform workers receiving incorrect CPF contributions, due to administrative errors. Where such cases arose, they were promptly resolved and platform workers received their correct CPF contributions.

Overall, the CPF collection for platform workers has been smooth due to the extensive pre-implementation engagements with platform operators and platform associations to iron out operational details. We will continue to monitor the timeliness and accuracy of CPF contributions made by platform operators and work closely with our tripartite partners to ensure platform operators' interests are always protected. [Please refer to ​"Clarification by Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Manpower", Official Report, 04 November 2025, Vol 96, Issue 9, Correction By Written Statement section.]

Ms Yeo.

Thank you, Speaker. I declare that I am the advisor to the Platform Work Associations of the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC). We are grateful that the Government had taken into account, with the passing of the Platform Workers Bill, our platform workers' feedback on the need for retirement adequacy through fair platform worker contributions to CPF. I, too, appreciate that the roll-out process for CPF is a complex one, given the difference in work conditions between a full-time employee receiving one monthly set of wages from one employer, to that of a platform worker receiving multiple sets of daily or even weekly wages due to the multi-homing nature of platform work.

In the current CPF process, workers have given the feedback that they do not enjoy CPF contributions for up to two months when they first join a new platform operator. They are also doubly penalised, as most platforms provide special sign-on incentives in the first month of work. I appreciate that the Ministry recognises this gap and is remedying the current operational processes. In recognising this gap, will the Ministry, too, also consider introducing measures to mandate CPF contributions from their first month of work and to provide joint back payments with platform operators to those affected platform workers who had missed out on their rightful CPF contributions for their work done?

Senior Parliamentary Secretary Shawn Huang.

Mr Speaker, when an existing platform worker chooses to join or switch to another platform operator, the platform operator would not know the platform worker's opt-in status during onboarding. And given different join dates and opt-in statuses, platform operators will need some lead time to query the opt-in information, update their database and update their contribution rates in their system accordingly.

A cut-off date on the 15th of each month is applied, which balances between the operational ease of platform operators and ensuring sufficient time for accurate contributions, while minimising this particular impact to platform workers in building up their CPF savings. This also means that if an opt-in platform worker onboard a new platform operator on 16 February, that platform operator will apply the higher CPF contribution rate from 1 April. All earnings payable from 16 February to 31 March would continue to attract CPF contributions at the non-opt-in rate. This payment does not constitute the delayed CPF contributions as the cut-off date, which is the 15th of the month, is currently legislated under the Fourth Schedule of the CPF Act.

The Ministry of Manpower has also considered requiring back payment of the CPF contributions. However, we assessed that this might not be favourable for the platform workers who experience inconsistent monthly earnings. Those who do not set aside enough cash savings might find themselves cash strapped when platform workers deduct the platform workers' share of the CPF contributions from their back pay. [Please refer to ​"Clarification by Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Manpower", Official Report, 04 November 2025, Vol 96, Issue 9, Correction By Written Statement section.]

Nonetheless, following the feedback, we have started engaging platform operators to assess whether the existing arrangement could be made more efficient while balancing the operational requirements. In doing so, it is important to strike a balance between the platform workers' interest and what is practical for the platform operators to administer, as any arrangement must ultimately be workable in practice.

8 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Education (a) what percentage of questions in the 2025 PSLE papers for each of the four main subjects were classified as challenging questions; (b) whether such questions require application of knowledge beyond the school syllabus; and (c) what measures the Ministry has in place to ensure that students who cannot afford private tuition are not disadvantaged by such examination questions.

Mr Speaker, the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) contains questions of varying difficulty levels to allow students with different abilities to demonstrate their understanding. Challenging questions make up approximately 15% of total marks in each subject.

All questions, including challenging ones, are based entirely on the primary school syllabus and do not require knowledge beyond the curriculum. However, challenging questions do require students to apply the concepts in novel or authentic contexts.

To ensure accessibility, all questions use age-appropriate language and contexts. In addition, challenging questions are often structured with scaffolding to help students attempt them progressively. These measures help to ensure that the PSLE remains accessible to all students, including those without private tuition.

Mr Gerald Giam.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. Sir, I understand that answering challenging questions require a higher order application of knowledge that is taught in the school syllabus. This refers to the ability to use foundational concepts to analyse, synthesise, evaluate and create solutions to complex problems. Are these higher order application skills even taught in schools? Is there sufficient curriculum time to do that without overloading our teachers or are students expected to acquire them through private tuition?

Secondly, what is the larger purpose of including these challenging questions in national exams, if students are not taught in school how to answer them? Could it, inadvertently, become a sorting mechanism to identify students with the most resources to get the best tuition? It should be noted that missing all the challenging questions in the PSLE paper would cap the student's grade at Achievement Level 3 (AL3) for that exam, which will impact their ability to gain admission to many competitive secondary schools.

Sir, I thank Mr Giam for the questions. The higher order questions, the challenging questions, are included partly because there are students who can deal with them and who then need their cognitive abilities, their academic abilities assessed correctly. And if we did not include the higher order questions, the more challenging questions, those students who would be able to cope with these questions would not have their abilities adequately assessed and then, would not be adequately served by PSLE.

He asked if the students were taught how to address challenging questions, or whether they were expected to only learn how to address them through the use of private tuition. The answer to the second part of that question is no. There is not an expectation that the only way to deal with challenging questions is through private tuition. Indeed, throughout the approach within our formal education system in the schools, the students are taught repeatedly how to take a concept and apply it to a question that they have not previously encountered.

This requires taking a concept that one knows about, addressing it to a novel situation, or addressing it in a way in combination with other concepts. This requires creativity, some imagination and an application of problem-solving skills. These skills – higher order thinking, problem solving, creativity and imagination – are applied repeatedly over the course of the formal education system using the concepts within the curriculum and they are similarly tested a combination of the concepts as well as the higher order thinking within the framework of PSLE. This entirely reflects the curriculum and the syllabus, and not any requirement for private tuition.

Mr Giam.

Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. But can I clarify that what he means is that the 15% of challenging questions, the ability to take those foundational concepts, and apply them and be able to answer those questions, those techniques are being taught in schools to all students?

Sir, I thank Mr Giam for the question. He used the word "techniques", implying that these are things that one just has to follow a checklist. These are skills, and a skill is not quite the same as a technique. So, indeed, the consideration of the development of these skills is a part of the formal curriculum and the syllabus that all students will go through.

9 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry considers that the academic rigour required to excel in the PSLE, such as rote memorisation and test-taking abilities (i) reflects the skills our youths need to thrive in the AI-driven economy, (ii) nurtures a lifelong love of learning and (iii) compares favourably with inquiry-based and collaborative learning approaches more common in other internationally recognised primary school curricula.

Mr Speaker, the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) serves as a useful checkpoint on students' mastery of the primary school curriculum. It is designed to assess core concepts and skills in the primary school curriculum, including the ability to think critically and apply concepts in different contexts. PSLE does not emphasise rote learning or test-taking skills.

To prepare students for the future, schools also design co-curricular programmes, applied learning programmes, Character and Citizenship Education lessons and leadership opportunities to nurture students' 21st Century Competencies. While not all of these competencies, such as collaboration skills and inventive thinking, can be measured through a single exam, they are developed in the course of learning the curriculum. Our teachers use a range of pedagogies, such as inquiry-based, collaborative and experiential learning, to facilitate students' learning.

We are heartened that international benchmarking studies, like the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, have found that our primary school students are adept in reasoning, and applying concepts and skills to navigate non-routine situations and solve more complex problems.

Mr Dennis Tan.

Mr Speaker, I have two supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. One, how does the Ministry ensure that inquiry-based and collaborative learning approaches are not only present in the curriculum, but meaningfully integrated into classroom practice across all schools, including those serving lower-income or higher needs communities?

My second supplementary question, has the Ministry recently conducted comparative studies of other primary school education systems, particularly, any that have successfully balanced academic rigour with creativity and collaborations, and what lessons, if any, have been drawn from these systems?

Sir, I thank Mr Dennis Tan for the two questions. Indeed, collaboration and inquiry-based learning is integrated into all of the schools. These are core skillsets for our educators. This is something that our professionals as part of their training in the National Institute of Education, whether they are doing it as part of their original practicum or they go on to become specialists in particular areas of education.

These are core skillsets for our educators and they integrate them into the curriculum, into the syllabus on a regular basis; and they do so for every school and they give every child the opportunity to do so.

What collaborative learning, inquiry-based learning looks like will change, depending on whether it is talking about a mathematics class, a language class, a social studies class, and it will also change depending on the level of confidence and maturity of the students. What happens in the early primary years is going to look quite different from the later primary years.

And so, the core skillset to ensure that this type of pedagogy is available, used and integrated into our teaching methodologies, into all our classrooms, is there and is something that is at the heart of the teaching profession.

Sir, his second question was about studies of other systems. The short answer is yes, our educators are regularly and consistently looking at other education systems. There is a very robust community of practice amongst the educators within Singapore, and with our region and internationally. They are constantly and consistently comparing notes on a practical level, on a personal level. And there is also a robust community of practice in education research, which our educators and our education researchers participate in, and they are also comparing notes. So, we are always learning from one another.

To answer the second part of his second question, I think, would take me a Committee of Supply speech – to identify all the different components of pedagogy, learning methodology and faculty development. But I would assure Mr Tan and Members of the House that our education fraternity does not assume that we have solved all the problems, all the challenges within the education space, notwithstanding the ranking and grading, and external view, we have to consistently and regularly make sure that what we do in our schools and in our classrooms meets the needs, not just of the system, not just our general population of students, but the individual students that the educators hand-hold through their learning and development journey. That is an ongoing process.

10 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs whether the Ministry can provide an update on the police efforts to patrol and effectively eradicate the bullying and assault incidents outside the temples along Waterloo Mall where illegal hawking is rife.

Sir, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) conducts regular patrols in the vicinity of the temples along Waterloo Street, especially during high congregation periods such as religious festivals. If they come across cases of bullying or assault, they will take action accordingly.

The SPF has also participated in joint operations with agencies like the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) and Singapore Food Agency. The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth, and the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) are also involved when there are incidents involving charitable organisations or vulnerable individuals.

The regular presence of these agencies in the area has helped to largely maintain order in the area.

Ms Phua.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the response. I first want to thank all the agencies' officers on the ground, from the Police from SLA, from the National Environment Agency (NEA), from MSF, and even the grassroots who look after the ground there. Because indeed the area that is along the Waterloo Mall, where lots of temples are, is a very popular place for peddling, legal or not legal, and also for begging as well. But because of the bullying and assault episodes, they often involve the vulnerable, both bullies and the bullied. SPF tends to adopt a light touch, I guess for worry of public criticisms. I just want to know what can the Ministry do more of to support these officers so that we can protect the interests of especially those who are bullied, and also seek the understanding of the public, even if the bullies are themselves vulnerable or disabled.

Bullying is bullying. Assault is assault. So, I wonder if more support and understanding for things that can be done to seek more support from the public so that the police officers can do their job even more effectively.

I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. Please allow me to be clear. On behalf of the Police, public disorder cannot be tolerated or condoned and indeed, if crimes have been committed, then investigation and enforcement has to follow.

In this case, there are different dimensions of what is happening in the Waterloo Street area and the Member herself is also very familiar. And for the cases of conduct where there is no outright crime being committed, but nevertheless may attract some attention, they could be vulnerable individuals involved. And in this case, it is important for us to work closely with our sister agencies. This includes the MSF and also the other agencies that I have mentioned.

11 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Law whether the Ministry can provide an update on the outcomes of the Singapore Land Authority's coordination efforts to preserve orderliness of the Waterloo Mall especially outside the temples where illegal hawking is rife.

Mr Speaker, in 2020, the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), Singapore Food Agency (SFA), and Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) carried out a street enhancement exercise at the pedestrianised Waterloo Mall. The objective was to improve public health and safety, as well as to enhance the streetscape. As part of this exercise, SLA issued Temporary Occupation Licences (TOLs) to existing street vendors to enable and require that they ply their trades within designated spaces.

From time to time, there are incidences of unlicensed street hawkers such as tissue paper vendors or individuals soliciting donations in the area. To preserve orderliness, agencies regularly conduct joint operations, especially during peak periods, to enforce licensing conditions and maintain order in the area.

Agencies are mindful that the unlicensed street hawkers in the area are of a mixed profile. Some are elderly and some appear to have medical conditions. Some also may face more complex challenges such as social isolation. While these in any combination, may form their motivation for illegal hawking, it may not always be the case. For those who may be vulnerable, agencies work with the Ministry of Social and Family Development to refer them to the Vulnerable-In-Community Network, comprising volunteer groups and Government agencies. Those requiring assistance will be linked to relevant agencies, so that the root causes can be addressed.

These joint operations are supported by the Singapore Police Force (SPF), which maintains a balanced enforcement approach in the vicinity of the temples along Waterloo Street, that considers both community sensitivities and public safety needs. SPF will intervene as necessary when law-and-order issues arise.

The regular presence of Government agencies has generally helped in maintaining order among the unlicensed street hawkers and other groups, and minimised incidents. The agencies will continue to monitor the situation closely.

12 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health in light of a recent survey findings that caregivers of persons with dementia spend on average over 200 hours and $2,000 monthly on care after subsidies (a) whether existing assistance adequately offsets the financial and psychological strain on the caregivers; (b) whether subsidies and allowance for dementia care will be reviewed; and (c) how pathways to access support can be improved.

Mr Speaker, an ageing population will drive up national healthcare expenses significantly. We have to ensure that Government healthcare expenditure remains sustainable. The Government recognises the challenges that caregivers face and provides a range of support to help them, including those caring for persons living with dementia.

This is why the Government is enhancing long-term care subsidies including for Dementia Day Care and grants like the Home Caregiving Grant in 2026.

To support the mental well-being of caregivers and equip them with coping skills, the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) connects caregivers to relevant services such as the Caregiver Support Network Community Outreach Teams (CREST-CSN) and the Post-Diagnostic Support Community Outreach Teams (CREST-PDS). Caregivers can approach AIC Link offices, which are located nationwide, call the AIC hotline, or use the digital Care Services Recommender to access these services, which are provided free of charge.

The Government will continue to look into how we can further strengthen support for caregivers of persons living with dementia.

Dr Chen.

I thank the Minister of State for her response. I have actually met some caregivers of loved ones with dementia in Tampines and they have shared how difficult the early stages can be. One caregiver told me that she did not know where to access support, what resources were available or even how to manage her mother's behavioural symptoms that were associated with dementia. So, I have three supplementary questions.

First, how can the Ministry ensure that the information about available resources is systematically shared with all caregivers upon diagnosis, especially those who may be less digitally savvy? Second, will there be more support for caregiver respite, given the emotional and mental toll of caring for persons with dementia? And my third question is, as dementia cases rise within our communities, how will the Ministry ensure that both caregiving resources and manpower keep pace and remain sustainable in the long term?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the questions. With regard to her first question on access to information and resources, the post diagnostic support community outreach team that I mentioned earlier, CREST-PDS, is designed in a way to catch caregivers and patients at the time that first diagnosis was made. It aims to provide timely support and support is given during a six-month period. The teams partner with selected hospitals and polyclinics to reach out to and support these clients. This programme provides the education on the condition, coordinates community resources, and facilitates early planning and management of the condition. As of December 2024, seven teams have been set up and it has reached out to over 800 persons living with dementia and their caregivers. So, I suppose as this programme continues to be rolled out, more and more caregivers and their dementia patients will benefit from this.

Her second question was on respite care. At the moment, the caregivers who require subsidised respite care can tap on a few options. If they need respite care for say, a few hours, they can have the elderly put up at one of over 130 senior care centres that provide dementia day care services. Those caring for seniors with higher care needs can tap on respite care in nursing homes, for up to a month for a year. There are over 60 nursing homes offering nursing home respite care.

Caregivers of homebound dementia seniors or homebound seniors can tap on the Home Personal Care Services (HPC) for respite. These can help the caregivers with the activities of daily living. In fact, there was an announcement recently about how the HPC has been enhanced. So, there is HPC+, which would be rolled out and be available to caregivers as well.

The Member's last question is in relation to sustainability of resources. Indeed, this is of concern. As the number of people living with dementia increases, this is something that we will have to be concerned about and the Government will have to continue to monitor and manage our healthcare expenditure to ensure long-term fiscal sustainability. But at the same time, ensuring that those who need help, people living with dementia and their caregivers, actually receive the support they need.

So, we do different things to ensure that there is sufficient support, but we also look at preventive health. There is a need to continue with our population health efforts to ensure and manage the factors of dementia, such as high blood pressure. That is something that we will continue working on.

Unfortunately, I think we are at the end of Question Time. Order. End of Question Time. Minister Indranee.

[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.]

Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Ministerial Statement on the need for clarification on statements made by the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament.

Mr Speaker, I am making this Ministerial Statement because there were some statements made in Parliament which appear to have been contradicted by statements made outside of this House. Hence, I think it is important that I make this Statement, so that I can highlight what these contradictions are and give the Member concerned an opportunity to state his position clearly for the record, as this relates to an important issue.

During the Ministerial Statement on Race and Religion by Minister Shanmugam on 14 October 2025, Mr Singh clarified by stating that: "I think the Minister started by referring to meeting Deros and I mentioned quite clearly during the elections that he gate-crashed the meeting that Mr Faisal Manap was having with someone else. My understanding from Mr Faisal Manap is that there was no arrangement to meet him specifically."

So, Mr Singh's position was that Mr Deros had "gate-crashed" Mr Faisal's meeting. The Workers' Party (WP) Malay/Muslim candidates attended this meeting.

Mr Singh also referred to an earlier statement he had made during the elections in the following terms: "There was no indication that this individual", meaning Mr Deros, "would be joining in the meeting".

Sir, Mr Deros has released a YouTube video on 18 October 2025, in which he said he "did not gate-crash the meeting as some have irresponsibly claimed". He also said that this could be verified with Mr Faisal Manap himself. Thus, Mr Deros says that Mr Singh's claim that Mr Deros had gate-crashed was "irresponsible". He does not refer to Mr Singh by name, but refers to the point made that he had gate-crashed.

Mr Deros has been publicly asked whether he had really been invited and if so, whether he had been invited by Mr Faisal Manap or someone else. Mr Deros has replied publicly that the names of the asatizahs who would be present at the meeting had been sent to Mr Faisal Manap before the meeting. Thus, Mr Deros has suggested that Mr Faisal, at least, would have known that Mr Deros would be attending the meeting.

On the face of things, it would appear that: either, one, Mr Faisal has told an untruth, which has been repeated by Mr Singh during the General Elections (GE) and now in Parliament; or two, Mr Deros is lying.

Sir, this is serious. And so, may I seek some clarifications from Mr Singh?

First, can Mr Singh reconfirm that his position is that Mr Deros had "gate-crashed" the meeting?

Second, can he confirm it is also Mr Faisal's position that Mr Deros had "gate-crashed" the meeting? Mr Faisal would know his answers to Mr Singh would be for this House.

Third, has Mr Singh confirmed with Mr Faisal whether the names of the asatizahs attending the meeting was sent in advance to Mr Faisal? If the names of the asatizahs attending the meeting were not sent in advance, was Mr Faisal nevertheless aware that Mr Deros would be attending the meeting?

I will now move onto my next set of clarifications.

During the proceedings on the Ministerial Statement on Race and Religion, Mr Singh clarified that: "my own view on this is, when a nobody claims that there is a set of demands that he has of a political party, one has to think of a number of factors."

He added that, "So, by dealing with it on 23 or 24 April, points made by a certain Noor Deros, who really, no one knows. I certainly did not know of him."

Mr Singh's statement that Mr Deros was a "nobody" whom "really, no one knows" gives the impression that Mr Deros was not known to the WP, to Mr Faisal, or to any of the other WP candidates who attended the meeting.

However, it has been publicly stated that:

Mr Deros founded the Wear White movement in 2014.

Mr Faisal said publicly then that he backed the movement.

Members of the Wear White team gathered for the first Terawih, which are evening prayers during Ramadan at Masjid Ar-Raudhah on 28 June 2014. Members of the public were invited to join in the prayers.

It is also a matter of public record that Mr Faisal attended that event.

Sir, in light of this, does it remain Mr Singh's position that Mr Deros was not known to Mr Faisal or any of the other WP candidates, before this meeting on 20 April 2025?

Mr Pritam Singh.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you to the Leader of the House. Just for a matter of record, before the Ministerial Statement was made, I communicated with Speaker, to inform Speaker last night that I would seek to make a clarification on certain representations that I had made in the House which were incorrect and they had to be clarified for the record.

So, just to be clear, I am responding through Standing Order No 25. Standing Order No 25 requires me to send to the Speaker in advance what I am going to share with this House and I will stick to that, notwithstanding Leader's questions. But apart from one point, I think all the questions that she has asked in her Ministerial Statement will be dealt with in the Personal Explanation.

I can confirm that, yes. Mr Pritam Singh, please go on.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to make a clarification pertaining to my response to a clarification from Member of Parliament (MP) Mr Saktiandi Supaat that arose from the Coordinating Minister for National Security's Ministerial Statement on 11 October, last month. I had stated, referencing my remarks at the WP's 26 April 2025 doorstop interview with the press that, I quote: "There was no indication that this individual would be joining in the meeting." By this individual I am referring to a Singaporean Citizen one Noor Deros.

On 21 October 2025, about a week after the Ministerial Statement, Mr Faisal Manap shared with me a WhatsApp message that he received on his mobile device at the material time. The WhatsApp message showed that the ustaz who had invited Mr Noor Deros to a meeting with Mr Faisal had sent a WhatsApp message to Mr Faisal on 20 April, about one hour before the meeting in question, indicating that Noor Deros would be present. I was not aware of this detail in April this year, nor was I aware of it last month during the exchange on the Ministerial Statement.

In view of this, I asked Mr Faisal to provide context for the meeting where Mr Noor Deros was present in view of the Ministerial Statement and the Parliamentary consensus that race and religion should not be used for political gain. I said in Parliament last month that the meeting in question was arranged by an ustaz who was known to Mr Faisal. The meeting took place on 20 April this year. I said, quoting Mr Deros's Facebook post of 3 May 2025 that he attended the meeting at the invitation of an ustaz who was delegated by Mr Faisal. This is correct and consistent with the facts of the meeting. Neither Mr Faisal nor the Malay WP candidates arranged to meet Mr Noor Deros or specifically sought him out for his views.

Mr Faisal shared that after GE 2011, he had approached an ustaz who was involved in inter-faith discourse to seek guidance on how he, being a minority Malay/Muslim MP could perform his role in a way that would best fit Singapore's multi-religious and multi-cultural society. He found the guidance helpful and meaningful, and hence, prior to GE 2015, he arranged for a similar session with an ustaz for himself and the WP Malay candidates to seek guidance and advice. Mr Faisal confirms that the motives behind the meeting prior to GE 2025, which was attended by Mr Noor Deros, were the same.

On 12 April 2025, before Parliament was dissolved and Nomination Day announced, the ustaz who invited Mr Noor Deros, reached out to Mr Faisal informing him that he was planning to engage with the group of his asatizah friends to meet Mr Faisal to exchange ideas and thoughts. In response, Mr Faisal said that he planned to engage with the ustaz for a sharing session with other WP Malay candidates in the lead-up to GE 2025.

When the meeting took place on 20 April, I can reconfirm that no promises or undertakings were made by Mr Faisal or the WP Malay/Muslim candidates present, in exchange for political support from Mr Noor Deros during the elections. This has been reconfirmed to me by Mr Faisal and the WP Malay/Muslim candidates who were present at the meeting.

During the Parliamentary exchange last month, I also said that Mr Noor Deros gate-crashed the meeting. In using the word "gate-crashed", I may have created an impression that Mr Noor Deros was not invited by anyone. This would be an incorrect impression since I had confirmed later in the course of my response in this House to Member Saktiandi that Mr Noor Deros's presence at the meeting was at the invitation of an ustaz delegated by Mr Faisal.

I would like to put this clarification on the record, Mr Speaker. I believe that deals with the Personal Explanation that I am obliged to share with Speaker, as per the Standing Orders.

There was an additional question from the Leader that pertained to Mr Noor Deros being a nobody. I have confirmed in the statement that the WP Malay/Muslim candidates confirmed that there were no promises or undertakings made. They also confirmed that they did not know who Mr Noor Deros was. That is the position.

Mr Faisal, as the Leader of the House shares, must have been known to Mr Deros because he was present at this Wear White event. So, Mr Faisal Manap would have known of who Mr Noor Deros was.

I hope that clarifies the query that the Leader put. And if I have not addressed any point, I would be grateful if Leader could repeat the question.

Minister Indranee.

I am grateful to Mr Singh for his clarification. Let me just deal with his clarifications one by one.

First, on the second point, the point that Mr Deros was a "nobody" and really, nobody knows of him. If I understand Mr Singh's explanation correctly, you said Mr Faisal Manap would have known Mr Deros? I just want to make sure that I get that correct. In other words, is it correct to say that Mr Faisal Manap knew who Mr Deros was or knew Mr Deros before that meeting in April? [Inaudible.]

So, he did. Right. In other words, the statement that Mr Deros is somebody who really nobody knows, is not accurate. Would you like to clarify that?

Mr Singh.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, Mr Faisal may have known of him, but the other Malay/Muslim candidates did not know of him. On my personal basis, I did not know who Mr Noor Deros was as well. So, in that context, that is what I mean when I say Mr Noor Deros is a nobody.

Minister Indranee.

I thank Mr Singh for his clarification. So, we are clear on one thing. I think Mr Singh says he himself does not know Mr Deros – that, we are clear. I think Mr Singh has also said that the other Malay/Muslim candidates, other than Mr Faisal, did not know Mr Deros – that one, we are clear.

The thing that Mr Singh has just said is that Mr Faisal Manap would have "known of" Mr Deros. There is a distinction between saying Mr Faisal Manap would have "known of" him; for example, I know of many other world leaders, but I do not know them personally. So, there is a distinction between saying Mr Faisal Manap would have "known of" Mr Deros and Mr Faisal Manap would have "known" Mr Deros.

So, what I am trying to understand here is whether Mr Faisal Manap just would have "known of", which means you hear of this person, but you do not know them, or whether he knew him.

Mr Singh.

Mr Speaker, I want to be careful in not trying to import Mr Faisal's knowledge and make a representation which may not be correct as to the degree of which he knew him. Did he know of him or did know of him as an individual? I think the Leader shared a particular occasion where both of them were at a common platform.

To the extent of how much Mr Faisal Manap knew of Mr Deros, I am not in a position to relay any information in that regard. But I have seen pictures to that effect of both Mr Faisal and Mr Noor Deros being at that event that the Leader mentioned. But I cannot stand here and suggest or even imply the extent of how well they knew each other.

Minister Indranee.

I thank Mr Singh for his clarifications.

So, now I move to the first point on this question of gate-crashing. And I was not sure that I quite understood Mr Singh's clarification here.

In light of the clarification, because I think it is important to go back to the original statement. The original statement, which was stated in Mr Singh's clarification on 14 October, he said, "I mentioned quite clearly during the elections that he had gate-crashed the meeting that Mr Faisal Manap was having with someone else."

So, "gate-crashed" actually implies that you are not invited and that really, you are not supposed to be there. But I think we have heard – firstly, today, that in fact, there was a WhatsApp message and the ustaz had shared with Mr Faisal Manap one hour before the meeting that Mr Deros would be present. So, would it be fair to say that it is wrong to say that Mr Deros gate-crashed that meeting?

Mr Singh.

Mr Speaker, I believe this was clear in my Personal Explanation that by using the word "gate-crashed", I would have created an impression that Mr Noor Deros was not invited by anyone. So, that would be wrong. It would not be right to leave that impression on the record. Hence, my decision to make a Personal Explanation, on my own volition, today.

The position, of course, is not known to me that he was — based on what I had said in April was based on the knowledge I had in April and the knowledge that I had in October. The revelation of this message that Mr Noor Deros was attending the meeting which was sent to Mr Faisal one hour before the meeting was only made known to me, I believe I mentioned it, on 21 October.

So, it is knowledge that I received after the fact. I have made certain statements in Parliament about it. I have this knowledge. So, I come to Parliament and I correct the impression that I have left with Parliament.

Minister Indranee.

I thank Mr Singh for that clarification.

It is quite clear that – Mr Singh has clarified it now – because he says the knowledge that Mr Deros was included in the group was given to him on 21 October.

What I want to know is, because Mr Singh had said during the elections that Mr Deros had gate-crashed the meeting, and Mr Singh had said the same thing on 14 October 2025; because on 14 October what Mr Singh said was, "I mentioned quite clearly during the elections that he had gate-crashed the meeting", I just want to know during the elections in April and on 14 October, on what basis does Mr Singh say that Mr Deros had gate-crashed the meeting?

Mr Singh.

The basis is the fact that Mr Deros was not invited by Mr Faisal. So, my impression based on what had transpired at the elections and also, in the course of the Ministerial Statement was, there was no WP member who specifically sought out Mr Noor Deros. That is how I phrased — or that understanding led me to use the word "gate-crashed".

But on reflection, that would not be a correct word to use, because it is quite clear that, and by Mr Deros' own statements in public that he was invited by the ustaz who Mr Faisal was in contact with. That also has been stated in my Personal Explanation.

Minister indranee.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will not belabour the point, but I just want to wrap it up by saying this.

There is actually a difference between saying that Mr Deros was not specifically sought out. Not specifically sought out is one thing, but "gate-crashed" really implies – not even supposed to be there, not invited. And what the facts do show now is that he was invited by the ustaz, and that the ustaz had informed Mr Faisal.

So, I think, in short, had this been known in April during the elections and made known to the voters, I think it might have put a different colour on the circumstances then.

And also, it is an odd word to use – "gate-crashed" – if you have not actually verified that. I am not sure that the statement that "gate-crashed" means "did not seek out", actually makes sense. But I leave it there.

Mr Singh.

Mr Speaker, that is precisely why I am making the Personal Explanation: to put on record what the circumstances were, with regard to the statements that I made on 14 October in Parliament and to correct the impression that would have logically flowed from the use of that word. So, I can understand where the Leader is coming from. Hence, the clarification.

I do not believe there are any other outstanding matters. Leader can correct me if that is not the case.

Minister Indranee.

Nothing further.

Order. Introduction of Government Bill. Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth.

[(proc text) "to amend the Singapore Sports Council Act 1973", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr David Neo) 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 for Second Reading read. (proc text)]

Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

Sir, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has been reviewing and amending the Penal Code over the years to ensure that the law remains fit for purpose. We made major amendments in 2019 and 2021. We have since completed another round of review, which has culminated in this Bill. The amendments in the Bill cover six themes.

First, increase deterrence against scams by introducing caning as a punishment, while re-calibrating its use in other offences.

Second, enhance measures to address the increasing misuse of technology to produce and circulate abusive materials.

Third, enhance protection for minors and vulnerable victims.

Fourth, better protect public servants and public service workers.

Fifth, ensure adequate penalties for older youth offenders.

Sixth, recalibrate the requirements on workers and dealers of precious metals.

The first category of amendments will enhance deterrence against scams by introducing caning for scammers and scam mules, while re-calibrating its use in other offences. With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute an Annex?

Go ahead. [A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 1.]

Members may also access these materials through the MP@SGPARL app.

Sir, scams are by far the most prevalent crime type in Singapore today. Between 2020 and the first half of 2025, there were about 190,000 cases reported, with losses amounting to about $3.7 billion. These are staggering numbers. They constitute 60% of all reported crimes, and the losses are more than three and a half times the cost of building Woodlands Health Campus.

MHA has been working with other agencies and the private sector on measures to counter the scourge of scams. Earlier this year, Dr Tan Wu Meng suggested in this House that MHA also consider introducing caning for scams, to better deter and punish those who commit scams or facilitate the commission of scams.

We have reviewed the suggestion and agree with it. Members may refer to Part A of the Annex for the proposed amendments.

We will introduce mandatory caning for scammers. Clause 64 of the Bill amends section 420 of the Penal Code so that offenders who commit scams, defined as cheating mainly by means of remote communication, will be punished with at least six strokes of the cane. We will also introduce discretionary caning in section 420 of the Penal Code for serious cases of cheating.

We will take an equally firm stance against scam syndicates. These syndicates mobilise significant resources to conduct and profit from scams and have the highest level of culpability. Clauses 37 and 38 of the Bill introduce new offences in the Organised Crime Act so that members of and recruiters for scam syndicates will be subject to mandatory caning of at least six strokes, if they knew that the organised criminal group was a scam syndicate.

Beyond dealing with scammers and scam syndicates, another key strategy is to deny them the tools that enable them to conduct scams. These scam enablers include SIM cards, Singpass credentials and payment accounts. Crippling the supply of scam enablers would significantly increase the difficulty for scammers to successfully conduct or profit from scams in Singapore.

We will therefore introduce discretionary caning for those who facilitate scams. These are offenders who either knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that the scam enabler they provide, would be used in the commission of, or would be used in the facilitation of, a crime. Clauses 10, 11, 19, 20 and 30 to 34 of the Bill introduce discretionary caning for certain offences under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act, the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act, and the Computer Misuse Act, in this regard.

For upstream enablers such as Singpass credentials and SIM cards, discretionary caning will broadly apply to two categories of cases.

The first category is where the offender intended or knew, depending on the offence, that the enabler would be used to commit or facilitate the commission of a scam.

The second category covers cases where the enabler is actually used to commit or facilitate the commission of a scam, even if the offender did not intend or know this. For the second category of offenders, discretionary caning will apply if the offender fails to prove that he or she had taken reasonable steps to ensure that the enabler would not be used to commit or to facilitate the commission of a scam.

For downstream enablers such as payment accounts, discretionary caning will apply if the criminal proceeds laundered involve benefits from a scam and the offender had failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that the account is not used to launder scam proceeds.

Let me assure Members that genuine victims who are found to have been deceived into providing a scam enabler would not be affected by the introduction of caning as a punishment. The existing offences do not penalise genuine victims in the first place. The Ministry will continue monitoring the scams situation closely and will further increase our penalties if needed. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Government continues to place strong emphasis on combating scams. In the first half of 2025, there were almost 20,000 cases and almost half a billion dollars lost. While these numbers have decreased compared with the first half of 2024, they are still significant.

In this Bill, we are proposing to introduce mandatory caning for scammers, as well as members and recruiters of scam syndicates. We will also introduce discretionary caning for those who facilitate scams through providing enablers, such as their Singpass credentials, SIM cards or bank accounts. If we can deny scammers access to such enablers, it will be much more difficult for them to carry out successful scams and we can better protect Singaporeans.

(In English): Sir, even as we introduce caning for scams, we also intend to recalibrate the use of caning in other offences.

Today, there are 96 offences that attract discretionary caning and 65 which attract mandatory caning. My Ministry has conducted a review, to ensure that caning is only applied where there is a need. As Members can see from Part B of the Annex, we are proposing to amend eight provisions to remove caning entirely and in the case of vandalism, to remove caning for a subset of the offence.

As our societal context and crime situation have evolved, caning may no longer be necessary in some offences. These are generally offences that do not involve intentional harm to a person nor cause significant harm to the public and for which we assess that the other penalties are adequate. Clauses 41, 61, 67 and 69 to 76 of the Bill make the necessary amendments.

For 15 provisions reflected in Part C of the Annex, we propose to give the Courts the discretion to decide whether to impose caning, rather than to require caning in all cases. These are given effect by clauses 15 to 17, 40, 54 to 60, 62, 65, 66 and 72 to 74 of the Bill.

For avoidance of doubt, more serious cases should still result in caning, even as we make these amendments to change mandatory caning to discretionary caning.

Let me illustrate with vandalism. Clauses 72 to 74 of the Bill amend the Vandalism Act so that mandatory caning is replaced with discretionary caning for vandalism of public property and designated private property. The latter category includes private property that is of national, cultural or religious significance and any other private property that the Minister may prescribe – in short, primarily property that has public significance or serves a public function. For these vandalism offences, we will leave it to the Court to decide whether caning should be imposed on a case-by-case basis.

This approach maintains a firm stance against vandalism generally, while allowing the punishment to be calibrated based on the facts of each case. The Court may consider factors like the extent of property damage, the vandal's motivations, the degree of premeditation, and the impact on public services and functions.

Similarly, in other offences which only involve preparatory acts or do not require an element of harm to be present before the offence is made out, we have assessed that discretionary caning is adequate. The Courts can still impose caning in serious cases where real harm results or there are other aggravating factors. This includes certain offences under the Corrosive, Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act, as well as attempted robbery and making preparation for gang-robbery under sections 393 and 399 of the Penal Code.

Let me be clear. The amendments do not signal any softening in our stance against crime. The large majority of offences which attract caning today, including serious sexual and violence offences, will continue to attract caning as a punishment.

Sir, the second category of amendments ensures that our criminal laws keep pace with technology.

First, we are introducing amendments to deal with large-scale circulation of obscene objects, which include sexual images or videos. Members will recall the case of the chat group SG Nasi Lemak, in which over 44,000 members circulated and shared obscene materials involving women and girls.

The Government's view is that the current penalties are not adequate. Technology allows obscene materials to be shared with tens of thousands of recipients, through a single key stroke. The harm is amplified, many times over. We cannot begin to imagine the distress suffered by a young girl whose images are sent to thousands of prying eyes. And because these materials can be sent to so many people, it is impossible to take them out of circulation entirely. They will always be lurking somewhere, threatening to resurface. These victims may never have peace of mind again.

Clause 42 of the Bill therefore introduces enhanced penalties for offences under section 292(1) of the Penal Code where obscene materials are circulated by electronic means to 10 or more persons. This threshold takes reference from other provisions where the involvement of 10 or more persons introduces a public dimension. For example, under the Societies Act, the threshold size of a group that must be registered as a society is 10 persons. The maximum imprisonment term for such offences will be increased from three months to two years. If the obscene material depicts a minor below the age of 18, the penalty will be mandatory imprisonment of up to four years, a doubling of the current maximum of two years' imprisonment. These enhanced penalties will also apply to cumulative transmissions to 10 or more persons in total, to close the potential loophole of accused persons sending separate messages to single individuals, but to a large number of individuals.

In addition, clause 43 of the Bill introduces a new offence to target those who set up or manage online locations where obscene materials are circulated, including administrators of chat groups or channels, blogs, or accounts on video-sharing platforms. The offence is scoped to offenders who intend that the online location be used to circulate obscene materials. It will not cover, for example, platforms whose online locations are used in this way contrary to their original intent or administrators whose chat groups are spammed by bad actors.

Given the seriousness of such conduct, the offence is punishable with a fine and mandatory imprisonment of up to five years, or seven years if the obscene material circulated depicts a minor below the age of 18.

Second, we also intend to deal with the problem of images and videos generated by the use of artificial intelligence (AI).

Let me begin with intimate images or recordings. By virtue of section 377BE(5) of the Penal Code, our criminal laws already cover sexually explicit deepfakes, where an image or recording is altered to depict the victim. It is already an offence to possess or gain access to, or to distribute or threaten to distribute such sexual deepfakes without consent.

However, generative AI now makes it possible to generate entirely synthetic images or videos of a person, without making use of a pre-existing image or recording. Clauses 50(a) and (b) of the Bill update the relevant provision to get ahead of this development.

Clause 49(d) makes clear that it is an offence to produce any intimate image without consent. Today, such offenders would already be liable for the offence of possessing or gaining access to an intimate image, but we want to make criminal liability clearer as far as production of the intimate image is concerned.

Clause 50(c) makes explicit what has always been our intent that for the offence of threatening to distribute an intimate image, it is not necessary to prove that the intimate image exists. Such threats can cause serious harm even if the intimate image does not exist, especially now that it is easier to generate such images using AI.

Sir, let me turn to child abuse materials. When the relevant offences were introduced in 2019, it was always the Government's intention to criminalise realistic computer-generated child abuse material, even if the material depicts a fictional child. The offences should not require proof that an actual child was involved, for example, that an image of an actual child was used as part of the training data for the AI used to generate the material. This is both to reduce the roadblocks to enforcement and to reduce the supply of such materials, which contributes to a vicious cycle of abuse. Clause 53 of the Bill amends the relevant definitions to put these points beyond doubt.

Mr Speaker, the third category of amendments builds on past efforts to protect minors and vulnerable victims.

First, clause 42 of the Bill extends enhanced penalties for offences relating to obscene materials under section 292 of the Penal Code to obscene materials depicting minors below the age of 18, up from the current threshold of 16. This will also bring us in line with the United Nations' Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography.

Second, we propose to strengthen the sexual grooming offences under sections 376E and 376EA of the Penal Code. Today, the offences generally only apply if the groomer and victim meet or intend to meet in Singapore for the sexual acts. There have, however, been cases where sexual grooming charges could not be preferred because the sexual acts were done or intended to be done overseas.

Clauses 47 and 48 of the Bill will amend the sexual grooming offences so that they will also apply to sexual acts intended to be done overseas, as long as the acts would constitute an offence if done in Singapore. To prevent overreach, this will only apply where either the groomer or victim travels from a location in Singapore to meet overseas. The amendments also increase the penalties for sexual grooming offences.

Third, clauses 45 and 46 of the Bill will increase the penalties for fatal abuse of vulnerable persons under sections 304B and 304C of the Penal Code to life imprisonment, or up to 30 years' imprisonment if life imprisonment is not imposed.

We are introducing life imprisonment because there is strong public interest to deter abuse of vulnerable persons. Often, they are voiceless, they cannot protect themselves, and they depend on others for even their basic needs. And so, when they are abused to the point of death, it is especially heinous and must be met with the full force of the law.

Take the tragic case of the young boy who was scalded to death by his parents a few years ago. In 2022, his mother was convicted of murder while his father was convicted of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by means of a heated substance. Both were sentenced to life imprisonment. Although the father's charge was not for causing death but only endangering life, the Court of Appeal found that life imprisonment was justified given the cruelty and severity of the abuse. The Government agrees with the Court's decision. Moving forward, similar cases may be prosecuted under sections 304B and 304C of the Penal Code instead as these provisions were specifically introduced to overcome certain hurdles in prosecuting cases of fatal abuse. The amendments will ensure that life imprisonment will be available as a sentencing option in such cases.

The fourth category of amendments addresses protections for public servants and public service workers.

Many public servants and public service workers are at risk of being doxed in the course of performing their duties, that is, having their identity information published with the intent to cause harassment, alarm or distress. Doxxing can impede or deter them from discharging their duties objectively and impartially, and when accompanied by falsehoods, can also undermine public confidence in our institutions.

First, we will strengthen the protections for public servants and public service workers under section 6 of the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA). Today, this offence requires proof that the victim actually suffered harm, alarm or distress. Clause 68 of the Bill removes this requirement. All harassment of public servants or public service workers in the line of duty is unacceptable. For the purposes of securing a conviction, it should not matter whether or to what degree the victim experienced harassment, alarm or distress.

The extent of harm experienced by the victim should, of course, still be a factor for sentencing.

Second, clause 25 of the Bill introduces a new offence in the Miscellaneous Offences Act to criminalise the doxxing of a public servant, when accompanied by a falsehood about the public servant that the offender knows or has reason to believe is false. Such conduct is especially harmful because not only are the individual public servants adversely affected, but trust in our public institutions is undermined. Section 7 of the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) today already criminalises the publishing of a falsehood if that specific falsehood diminishes public confidence, but this new offence will not have that requirement of needing to show diminution of public confidence.

To be clear, neither of these amendments prevents members of the public from expressing legitimate feedback or criticism, including publicly. Such feedback, expressed constructively and through the appropriate channels, can help us improve our service delivery and staff training. There will also not be any offence disclosed if the feedback is based on genuinely mistaken facts, since the offence requires that the person know or have reason to believe that a statement of fact is false.

Mr Speaker, the next category of amendments in this Bill ensures that adequate penalties, including reformative training, imprisonment and caning, can continue to be imposed on older youth offenders who are repeat offenders or who commit serious crimes, and whose cases are heard outside the Youth Court.

In 2019, the Government moved the amendments to the Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA) to expand the jurisdiction of the Youth Court to all offenders below the age of 18, up from the previous age of 16. The policy intent, however, was to ensure that if youth offenders between the ages of 16 and 18 commit serious offences or repeat offences, their cases could be transferred out of the Youth Court to the High Court and State Courts. In those cases, it was always intended that the High Court and State Courts will continue to have the full suite of powers to deal with the offenders. However, when preparing to operationalise the CYPA amendments, we identified certain provisions in the earlier round of amendments which are not fully aligned with the policy intent.

Clauses 3 to 7, and 23 of the Bill straighten out these provisions and ensure that the policy intent is given its full effect. In particular, it ensures that reformative training, imprisonment and caning are available in such cases. To be clear, the amendments will not require the Court to impose these penalties, nor otherwise limit the Court's discretion in sentencing. The Court can still, upon a close examination of the facts, impose a rehabilitative sentence.

The final set of amendments, Sir, in clauses 26 to 28 of the Bill pertains to workers and dealers of precious metals. The amendments to the Miscellaneous Offences Act will increase the waiting period before such workers or dealers can work on or deal with goods sold to them, from three days to five. This will give the Police more time to trace and recover stolen goods.

At the same time, we are reducing the scope of the requirement. This waiting period will only apply to the worker or dealer who first receives goods from a customer; and not the worker or dealer who receives the goods from another dealer. Stolen goods usually come from a customer, rather than from another dealer.

The overall intent of the amendments is to improve law enforcement's ability to trace stolen goods and the criminals, while minimising the burden on businesses in a risk-calibrated manner.

Sir, the amendments in the Bill are part of MHA's regular efforts to make our criminal laws clearer, fairer and more responsive to the prevailing operating environment. They will help MHA carry out our mission of keeping Singapore safe and secure more effectively. We seek the support of Members for the amendments. Mr Speaker, I seek to move.

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

Mr Xie Yao Quan.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to weigh in on two categories of amendments. First, the amendments regarding the large-scale electronic circulation of obscene objects; and second, the amendments regarding scams and scam-related offences.

First, on the large-scale electronic circulation of obscene objects. I fully agree with and applaud the Government for creating a new offence to target administrators who set up or manage online locations to facilitate the large-scale circulation of obscene material. I believe this will allow the Government to better go after the source of the problem and deal with the problem at its source and hopefully, deter the problem at its source as well.

I also agree with the Government that such administrators who set up or manage online locations to facilitate the large-scale circulation of obscene material have a higher level of culpability compared to members of the online location who share obscene content.

But I wish to suggest even stiffer penalties for such administrators. The current amendments introduce mandatory imprisonment of up to five years, with a higher maximum if the obscene materials circulated depict minors. We can and should go further, to introduce discretionary caning for administrators of online locations circulating obscene material, to bring the penalties for such offences in line with those for assault or use of criminal force to a person with the intent to outrage modesty, under section 354 of the Penal Code.

Because the criminal force inflicted through electronic means by administrators of online locations on their victims is certainly no less severe than the criminal force inflicted in person by a physical perpetrator. And many a times, the criminal force inflicted is probably even more severe, due to the multiplicity and simultaneity of the outrage on modesty made possible by electronic means to assault a victim at scale and at speed.

Discretionary caning for administrators of online locations circulating obscene material is, therefore, proportionate and fits the crime. Given the prevalence and extreme ease to become an administrator of such online locations, discretionary caning is also needed as a deterrent. Therefore, the nature of the offence of administering online locations to circulate obscene materials fits both the functions of proportionality and deterrence that judicial caning today serves.

Sir, I move on to my second point, on scams and scam-related offences, and I start with the following premise – that scams are a national law-and-order priority, like drugs. Scams are operated in a way, basically, like drugs are. Scams are perpetrated by organised crime syndicates, like drugs. And scams are masterminded and commandeered remotely, from overseas, with the most downstream part of the production chain of criminal activities sited onshore, in Singapore – just like drugs are.

Scams cause immense harm to society, just like drugs. If drugs destroy lives, scams destroy life savings. Scams harm both the young and old. And because scammers often impersonate Government agencies, scams can also erode the trust of our society at-large, in our key institutions, like the Police, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority, and so on. In other words, scams do not just affect victims, they impact the whole of society.

Our key institutions have to react, put up defences and these defences come at a cost. So, scams extract a cost on the whole of our society, every day. Scams cause immense harm to society, just like drugs. And so, our criminal laws should deal with scams just like they deal with drugs.

I suggest that penalties for scams and scam-related offences should be brought more in line with those for drug-related offences, at three levels.

At the first level, the scammers. In other words, the masterminds, the key operators, the most culpable, those at the highest level in the chain. Scammers manufacture schemes on an industrial level to cheat victims of their life savings. In my mind, scammers are, therefore, no less harmful to our society than manufacturers of controlled Class A drugs.

The amendments before us today introduce mandatory caning for scammers, minimum six strokes, which I fully support. But the law also provides for maximum imprisonment of only 10 years for scammers. I would like to suggest much stiffer penalties: a minimum of six strokes and 10 years; and a maximum of 15 strokes and 30 years or life imprisonment for scammers, to bring these penalties in line with those for illegal manufacturers of controlled Class A drugs, including New Psychoactive Substances.

I will stop short of calling for capital punishment for the most egregious scammers, which should be in line with the penalty for manufacturers of specific Class A drugs, like morphine, cocaine and methamphetamine.

We know the scammers, masterminds and key operators, are mostly based overseas; just like the masterminds and key manufacturers of illicit drugs. But having very stiff penalties for scammers is an important and necessary marker, in my view.

Sir, the second level, members and recruiters of scam syndicates. Many of these members and recruiters of scam syndicates are based in, or come through, Singapore, unlike the scammers. If scammers are as harmful to our society as manufacturers of Class A drugs, in my mind, scam syndicate members and recruiters are as harmful as traffickers of Class A drugs.

The amendments before us today introduce, again, mandatory caning for such scam syndicate members and recruiters, minimum six strokes. But the law also provides for maximum imprisonment of only five years. So, for scam syndicate members and recruiters, I would like to suggest much stiffer penalties, again: a minimum of six strokes and five years; and the maximum of 15 strokes and 20 years, to bring these penalties in line with those for traffickers of Class A drugs in most instances.

Sir, the third level, scam mules who enable scammers by laundering scam proceeds, providing SIM cards and/or providing Singpass credentials. To my mind, these are the lowest levels of the scam crime production chain. Yes, they do harm, they have culpability, but they are the lowest levels. I will peg them closer to traffickers of Class C drugs.

And therefore, in my view, the penalties introduced by the amendments before us today for scam mules appear somewhat disproportionately harsh, compared to the penalties being introduced for scammers and scam syndicate members and recruiters higher up the scam crime chain.

For example, if the Bill today is passed, a mule who provides accounts or arrangements to launder scam proceeds, in particular, will face discretionary caning of up to 12 strokes and also maximum imprisonment of 10 years, compared to, as I said before, maximum imprisonment of five years for being a scam syndicate member or recruiter.

So, I suggest more proportionate penalties for all types of scam mules: discretionary caning with a maximum of six strokes instead of 12 and maximum imprisonment of five years but, also, I would like to suggest a minimum of two years, to bring these penalties more in line with those for trafficking Class C drugs. I believe these suggested penalties, especially the minimum imprisonment of two years, will sufficiently deter specific offenders and would-be offenders from offending in future.

Sir, notwithstanding the above suggestions, I support the Bill.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

Mr Speaker, this Bill makes significant changes to 17 of our criminal statutes. Overall, I am supportive of the Bill.

I wish to speak today on two matters that I find most significant: first, on tackling scams; second, on the reduction in the use of caning for other offences. I also have some queries on the new offence of doxxing of public servants. My party colleague, Member Fadli Fawzi, will speak later on related issues and other aspects of the Bill.

First, on tackling scams. It is clear that despite significant efforts poured into anti-scam measures, Singaporeans are still falling prey to scams and losing significant sums. Banks have made efforts to strengthen digital banking to detect and delay unusual transactions. Public education has intensified: there is now even an anti-scam warning on the Parliament website. But scammers, too, have raised their game.

Scam organisations are brilliant at social engineering and tailoring their ruses to suit the intended victim. Scammers are going further. In one case I came across, the scammers even coached the victim as to what to tell Police if she was questioned, which she dutifully complied with, as if under some sort of spell. Clearly, we are dealing with highly sophisticated operators.

Sir, the Bill has 19 provisions that are targeted at scam offences. Although there are existing laws to cover these situations, the new provisions create new specific offences or enhance the punishment if they are committed through scams.

For instance, the Organised Crime Act is being amended to create two new offences; of being a member of a locally linked organised scam group and being a recruiter for organised scam groups, whether locally linked or not. Besides setting high fines and jail time of up to five years, mandatory caning of at least six strokes is to be imposed.

How effective the provisions will be will depend on how tightly they can be enforced – no point having strict laws if offenders are not pursued. It is also likely that even if persons are caught, offender displacement will occur – meaning that there will be no shortage of persons willing to replace them, if the rewards are lucrative enough.

For organised scams, effective enforcement will require agencies across borders to share information and conduct joint operations as well.

At this point, it is not clear to me how committed every government in Southeast Asia is towards combatting scams. In the past week, there was extensive media coverage on a scam ring in Cambodia, apparently led by a Singaporean and staffed by scores of compatriots. It was reported that the Cambodian police conducted a joint operation with Singapore Police on 9 September, after which 15 suspects, including 12 Singaporeans, were arrested and charged here. It was further reported that Cambodian police found evidence of the involvement of other suspects and this evidence formed the basis for the Singapore Police Force (SPF) to issue INTERPOL Red Notices against them. While the handling of this case so far shows strong cross-border cooperation, I wonder if such extensive cooperation happens on a regular basis. Further, does the Ministry expect in future to utilise the expanded powers under the Extradition Act to request the Association for Southeast Asian Nation (ASEAN) neighbours to hand over such suspects to Singapore through extradition?

Sir, it is public knowledge that Southeast Asia is a hotbed for organised scam groups and some ASEAN countries are reported to be where the main operations are located. To respond to this, some governments are using other tools besides the criminal law. Two months ago, the American Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, issued a statement highlighting that "criminal actors across Southeast Asia" had, and I quote, "increasingly exploited the vulnerabilities of Americans online", resulting in an estimated loss of US$10 billion last year. He announced that the American government would impose sanctions on various persons and entities involved in running a scam centre in Myanmar and forced labour compounds in Cambodia. He opined that the sanctions would have the effect of disrupting the ability of the criminal networks to perpetuate their fraudulent and abusive activities.

To that end, it would be useful to know to what extent the Singapore Government will also consider other tools outside the criminal law to disrupt such organised scam groups.

The Bill also introduces caning as an additional option in scam cases involving the misuse of Singpass credentials under the Computer Misuse Act. The same is being done under the Miscellaneous Offences Act for scams involving the misuse of SIM cards. As for cheating under the Penal Code, there will be mandatory caning if done through remote communications, such as the Internet, telephone or electronic or other technology.

Sir, the most significant aspect of all the scam-related amendments is the introduction of caning as a punishment. Given the tremendous material loss and psychological harm caused to scam victims, I have little sympathy for those who perpetrate these cruel acts.

That said, the sentence of caning is a harsh punishment. While it is a legacy of our colonial past, it is a punishment where the state inflicts violence and physical pain on a prisoner. From reported accounts of some who underwent the punishment, caning led them to bleed and by some accounts, to suffer such pain that it led them to go into a state of shock.

Sir, I accept that there is a strong imperative to curb scams and it could well be at the stage now when we have to pull out all the stops. In that light, could the Ministry elaborate on why it has assessed that caning will be effective to reduce scam activity? Did the Ministry consider alternatives, such as providing for longer jail terms and heavier fines?

This brings me to my second point which is related. I strongly welcome the reduction in the use of caning for other offences.

The Bill proposes the total removal of caning as a punishment for certain offences and for others, making caning optional instead of mandatory. In its press release on 14 October, the Ministry stated that it made these moves considering factors such as whether the offences were still of significant public concern and whether other punishments sufficed. This review – to remove unnecessary punishments – brings important balance to this Bill.

The amendments proposed to the Vandalism Act are particularly significant and welcome. The Bill removes the rigidity of the current Act, where mandatory caning of between three to eight strokes must be imposed on vandalism of both public and private property, except in limited circumstances. The Bill instead proposes that mandatory caning be removed for all vandalism offences. Instead, caning will exist as an option for the Court, in cases where the vandalism is deemed more serious.

Sir, even after the Bill is passed, I hope the Government will, from time to time, review offences which currently attract caning to see if caning is still warranted. Social conditions change over time, and our laws should be fit for purpose. Singapore is currently on a short list of about 30 countries that still have corporal punishment on its criminal statutes. Of course, we must decide for ourselves what is appropriate for our criminal justice system. That said, I believe Singaporeans will support a criminal justice system that is effective and at the same time, humane.

Finally, doxxing of public servants. Clause 25 creates a new offence in the Miscellaneous Offences Act of doxxing of public servants. Under the proposed section 14E, it will be an offence for anyone to publish identity information and false statements about public servants, if connected to the discharge of their duties. I have three questions related to this.

First, the section will apply to protect public servants. As to who would be considered a public servant, the proposed definition refers to the definition of public servant in the Penal Code, as well as any person who, under other written laws, is deemed a public servant for the purposes of the Penal Code. If so, would someone holding a political position, such as a Minister or Member of Parliament (MP), be covered under the section?

Second, the section prohibits the publication of identity information, not just about the public servant but also a "related person". The definition of "related person" is stated as "another person about whose safety or well-being the (public servant) would reasonably be expected to be seriously concerned". This definition is inexact and potentially includes almost everyone, including family members, colleagues and acquaintances. What is the intended ambit of the definition of "related person"?

Sir, the third query relates to the use of illustrations to clarify the law. There is an illustration clarifying that the doxxing offence would be made out where the false statement and the identity information were carried in two separate online posts. However, this illustration is found in the Explanatory Statement to the Bill and is not part of the text of the law. I would like to know why the illustration is not legislated together with section 14E but instead is relegated to the Explanatory Statement. It would seem to me to be more appropriate to carry the illustration upfront in the law itself, to make it clearly visible to anyone looking up the law in the future. Instead, having it in the Explanatory Statement makes it harder to locate and may lead to unnecessary arguments down the road.

Sir, let me conclude. The Bill confronts us with decisions about the use of caning as a judicial punishment. In view of the devastating harms scammers have caused and continue to cause to Singaporean families, I believe the public supports the amendments regarding scam offences. At the same time, there is a concerted effort in the Bill to remove or reduce the use of caning for various other offences. This is a move I fully endorse, as we work to scope our criminal laws more tightly and appropriately. Finally, I look forward to the answers to the questions I have posed regarding regional cooperation and other approaches to disrupt scam organisations and on the offence of doxxing of public servants.

Ms Joan Pereira.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill which seeks to future-proof and strengthen our criminal justice framework, particularly in response to emerging threats involving technology, public safety and organised crime. I would like to speak on three areas today: sexual offences, protection of public servants and the revision of caning penalties, including for scams.

First, I applaud the Ministry's move to update sexual offences to protect our people, especially the young and the vulnerable, in an ever-evolving digital landscape. The amendments proposed have been designed to be able to factor in future developments and trends in technology and social media.

The Bill proposes enhanced penalties for the sale, distribution or large-scale electronic circulation of obscene objects, particularly those depicting minors, with the age threshold also being raised from 16 to 18. These amendments bring us in line with international standards and are crucial to allow us to respond to cases like the SG Nasi Lemak Telegram group, which saw thousands exposed to such harmful material. Importantly, the amendments make it clear that consensual and private sharing of intimate images between adults will not be criminalised, reaffirming the law's focus on protecting, but not policing citizens' private lives. While this is the case, I hope that people continue to be careful about who they share their intimate content with, especially in the face of potential love scams or even blackmail, amongst other possibilities for abuse or misuse. I would also like to suggest that such potential harms are addressed in sex education classes in schools.

The amendments also seek to deal with the risks of synthetic, AI-generated intimate images, including "deepfakes" and computer-generated child abuse materials under our criminal laws. These images, though not constructed from real photographs, are equally harmful and can devastate reputations and cause emotional damage. The law must remain ahead of technology and this amendment sends a strong deterrent message to would-be offenders that "virtual" crimes are, in fact, very real, with equally real and painful penalties. It would also reinforce what our society considers to be obscene.

While these are laudable steps, I would urge the Government to pay closer attention to bullying cases, in situations where it could entail the distribution of intimate images of minors, which can be weaponised as a form of sexualised bullying. While legal deterrence is very important, the penalties imposed on the perpetrators are by themselves not able to help support the recovery of the victims or to cope with the aftermath of the bullying attacks. Therefore, I hope that there will be clear guidelines and robust victim support systems to protect the vulnerable young victims.

The Bill introduces stronger measures to deter harassment, doxxing and the making of false allegations against public servants, recognising the negative impact these acts have on public officers and, by extension, public confidence in our institutions.

No longer must the victim prove harassment, alarm or distress. Intent to harass is enough and this is a much needed strengthening of deterrence without placing undue burden on the doxxing victim to prove that they had suffered. A new offence targets the disclosure of a public servant's identity accompanied by a falsehood, when intended to prevent or deter the discharge of their duties. This recognises that false narratives can rapidly undermine confidence in public institutions and make it difficult for public servants to perform their jobs.

Finally, I support the revision of caning penalties, especially the landmark move to introduce caning for scams and scam-related offences. In the past five years, scams have shattered lives and torn families apart, with Singaporeans losing billions of dollars. This pain extends far beyond financial loss. Some victims feel so desperate that they resort to tragic ends. Families are broken by trust betrayed, and savings painstakingly built over lifetimes are wiped out in a moment.

Mandatory caning for scammers and syndicate members, and discretionary caning for so-called "mules" will send an unequivocal signal: Singapore will not tolerate those who prey on our people, be it from behind a keyboard or through sophisticated networks. Deterrence must be robust and, as past experience with loan shark harassment shows, caning is effective in reducing recalcitrant crime. While the punishment is severe, the harm caused to victims, whose lives are often ruined, justifies the tough response.

However, cross-border cooperation is still very important in the enforcement of these laws, in order to bring the criminals to justice. Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mandatory caning for scammers and syndicate members, and discretionary caning for so-called "mules" will send an unequivocal signal: Singapore will not tolerate those who prey on our people, be it from behind a keyboard or through sophisticated networks. Deterrence must be robust and past experience with loan shark harassment shows – caning is effective in reducing recalcitrant crime. While the punishment is severe, the harm caused to victims – whose lives are often ruined – justifies the tough response. However, cross-border cooperation is still very important in the enforcement of these laws, in order to bring the criminals to justice.

(In English): Mr Speaker, the amendments before us today make our laws more relevant, responsive and robust in the face of new threats. I support the Bill, even as I urge for continued vigilance, including in victim support, clarity for bullying cases and stronger protection for public servants, in the age of ease of doxxing.

Mr Fadli Fawzi.

Mr Speaker, I am declaring my interest as a lawyer in private practice and I have been a defence counsel in criminal cases. Sir, the Bill advances some timely updates to our criminal laws. I am supportive of the Bill's intentions, especially the changes which allow us to keep pace with the ever-evolving nature of crimes.

The Bill addresses important lacunae in the law that have emerged as a result of technological advances, some of which may have extra territorial implications. For instance, I support the provisions to explicitly penalise the production of computer-generated obscene images to strengthen penalties for obscene objects involving minors below the age of 18 and to expand the scope of sexual grooming offences to cover meetings outside of Singapore.

The Bill also affords public servants better protections from harassment. As an MP overseeing the running of a Town Council, I fully understand the need for these amendments. I have seen how our hardworking Town Council staff have been unfairly targeted with their names and identities spread around by some unhappy residents. The Bill provides our public servants with the necessary assurance that they can safely and securely discharge their duties without the threat of public harassment.

I support how the Bill increases prison terms for causing or allowing the fatal abuse of vulnerable victims. This includes children and domestic workers who are often defenceless and cannot fight back. We are sending the right message by increasing the sentences, which can go up to 30 years or life imprisonment to ensure that the vulnerable are protected.

Mr Speaker, the Bill also revises our penal policy with respect to caning. On one hand, caning has been introduced for certain categories of scam- and fraud-related offences. On the other hand, caning has been removed or made discretionary for other offences, such as specific vandalism offences. I mentioned the Vandalism Act, in particular, because there were some disquiet, both in public and in Parliament, when caning was first mooted as a penalty.

For instance, the Vandalism Act has been described by legal academic Jothie Rajah as a significant departure from penal practises in prescribing a violent punishment for a property offence when it was introduced in 1966. It is worth noting that the then-Law Minister EW Barker recognised the unique nature of Singapore's caning policy on vandalism. He said, "At the outset, it must be considered that the present day penological trends are against the infliction of caning as punishment, and that legal opinion is, in general, against the imposition of corporal punishment in cases not involving violence or brutality."

In the same debate, then-People's Action Party (PAP) backbencher, Mr Tang See Chim, also warned, and here I am quoting him, "That the severity of the punishment may not, in fact, necessarily be a deterrent. The way to deter any crime, I submit, is to impress on the wrongdoer the certainty of his being found out if he commits one."

Sir, we seem to have come full circle from 1966. Now, we are about to cease mandatory caning as punishment for vandalism. At the same time, however, we are introducing corporal punishment for a new class of offences related to frauds and scams. It goes without saying that we need to protect Singaporeans from scammers. Their modus operandi grows ever more sophisticated and multifarious, and it can seem as though we are trying to fight a hydra. Of course, we would want to use all the weapons we have at our disposal to confront this hydra-headed challenge.

As we consider caning as punishment against scammers, I do believe the points raised in the debate on the Vandalism Act in 1966 can still be relevant. In particular, they were concerned about whether caning is an appropriate deterrence against crime. I do not wish to understate the severity of the monetary losses as a result of scams: it can run up to life-changing amounts or even the entirety of an elderly person's retirement funds.

Many of us in the House, myself included, will have encountered scam victims seeking assistance at our meet-the-people sessions. The scale of their losses can be heartbreaking.

The question still remains. How should we fight the hydra of these scam networks? Would caning be effective and is it appropriate?

As many of us are aware, scams are now increasingly being perpetrated by organised crime networks. These groups often operate transnationally. It is quite likely that the ringleaders would be cocooned safely somewhere, far from Singapore, in countries that may not have extradition treaties with us. Meanwhile, the lower-level operatives are the ones on the frontlines and liable to be caught. Would caning the latter group of individuals cause a dent on their criminal operations? Furthermore, would introducing the prospect of being caned substantially change the calculus for the ringleaders?

From the perspective of disrupting these scam operations, it may actually make more of a difference if we strengthen cross-border law enforcement cooperation and extradition arrangements. I acknowledge that this is being done by the Government. My point, however, is that we can better deter the ringleaders by increasing the likelihood of them being caught, rather than the prospect of more severe punishment.

Another possibility is to offer leniency to lower-level operatives who assist the authorities in dismantling these crime networks. Many of these lower-level operatives, including the mules, may be unwilling participants who have been, themselves, tricked into working for these criminal networks.

On another note, I want to ask whether there is the possibility of the Government imposing sanctions against criminal organisations involved in scamming Singaporeans, similar to what has been done in other jurisdictions, like the United States (US). Can financial sanctions or asset confiscation be viable options to pursue with a view of, perhaps, using the recovered funds to finance a scam victim restitution fund of sorts? I am aware of the operational details of something like a victim restitution fund, would have to be worked out carefully. However, unlike caning, this offers a more tangible benefit to the victims.

Mr Speaker, I wish to emphasise again that I am not speaking out of some misplaced sympathy for the potential scammers who might be caned. I fervently believe that scam victims deserve justice for the psychological and material losses they have to endure. I can also understand the appeal of bringing the full force of the law onto these scammers who have left so much misery and pain in their wake. But, Sir, the law is not a blunt instrument, but something to be used with precision.

It is worth reiterating that this is not a question of whether scammers should be harshly punished; of course, they should be. However, the pertinent question is whether the marginal deterrent value of a longer prison sentence matches or even exceeds the marginal deterrent value of imposing caning as a penalty.

Mr Speaker, I do not doubt that the Government sincerely wants to do the right thing for Singaporeans. I hope my reservations about caning for scam-related offences are also seen in the right way – that is, as a constructive intervention to ask whether caning is truly the most effective means of protecting Singaporeans from the scourge of scams.

Dr Wan Rizal.

Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. Our laws must keep pace with the way harm is spread today through closed chats, fast moving platforms and AI tools that can humiliate in seconds. This Bill makes targeted amendments across several key acts, including the Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, Computer Misuse Act, Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes Act, and the Miscellaneous Offences Act.

This Bill makes updates in six key areas. It strengthens deterrence against scams and tech-enabled crimes, increasing penalties for abuse of vulnerable victims and update laws on sexual offences, including AI-generated intimate images. It introduces a new offence for spreading false statements or doxxing public officers, align scanning and sentencing provisions for greater consistency and refines procedures for youth offenders to balance rehabilitation and accountability.

Together, these changes modernise our criminal laws, ensuring firm deterrence, comprehensive protection and a justice system that remains fair and trusted. Given the breadth of this Bill, I will focus my remarks on two key areas.

First, the measures to deter scams and technology-enabled crimes, particularly, how they protect vulnerable residents, including seniors in older estates, such as mine in Kolam Ayer, and across the Jalan Besar group representation constituency (GRC). Second, the protection of our frontline public service officers, our teachers, our healthcare workers, our Home Team officers, among others who serve with dedication, but are increasingly vulnerable to online harassments and false allegations.

As a labour MP, I will also touch on how these changes strengthen workplace protection and mental well-being for those who serve the public every day.

Mr Speaker, scams continue to be a scourge in our society. They prey on trust, create financial pain and leave victims, especially seniors, feeling ashamed or helpless. In Kolam Ayer and across Jalan Besar, I have met elderly residents who have fallen prey to scams. Some were tricked into disclosing their bank details, others believed they were helping a family member in distress. For many, it was their life's saving, painstakingly build over decades, that vanish in mere minutes. The emotional trauma often outlasts the financial loss.

This Bill introduces caning as an additional penalty for scam syndicates and their enablers: those who knowingly Singpass credentials provide SIM cards or launder criminal proceeds. These acts are not trivial. They enable syndicates to prey on the unsuspecting and amplify harm across the community. This is appropriate because behind every scammer or mule stands a victim who loses not just money, but confidence and dignity. However, deterrence must be matched with precision and prevention.

To that end, I seek two clarifications from the Ministry.

Firstly, on role indicators, will sentencing guidance clearly define the markers of key roles, such as recruiters and organisers. For example, when they procure SIMs, multi-wallet control, profit shares and script coaching, so that the Courts can distinguish mastermind from the low-level participants. I ask this because clearer distinctions help to ensure that penalties fall proportionately on those who profit most, while preventing unfair outcomes for those who have limited involvement.

Second is on reasonable steps. Will there be positive checklists defining what counts as reasonable steps for first-time offenders or mules? This will prevent sham compliance and give fair notice to those tempted by easy money. I ask this because clear guidance can deter borderline cases before they can actually occur, especially among the young or financially desperate individuals who may not grasp the full consequence of aiding a scam.

Sir, beyond punishment, I do believe prevention remains critical. Our laws are strongest when our people are informed. Many seniors and low-income residents remain vulnerable to scams because of their limited digital literacy. So, I hope with this enforcement, we continue to be complemented by sustained public education through our digital ambassadors, our community volunteers, so that every resident can navigate the digital world with confidence. Strong deterrent must be matched by proactive education so that no Singaporean feels unprotected in this increasingly digital landscape.

My second point, Sir, is on protecting frontline public service officers. Sir, the Bill also strengthens protection for those who serve the public – our officers, our educators, healthcare workers and enforcement personnel – by criminalising doxxing and false allegations against them. This is a timely and necessary step.

In recent years, we have seen public officers unfairly targeted online, their names and photos circulated with false claims. At Tan Tock Seng Hospital, a patient uploaded a police report online and falsely named a doctor as being involved in an alleged mistreatment. The hospital later clarified that the named doctor was not involved, but by then, the harm to his reputation and peace of mind was already done.

The Ministry of Education has also acknowledged that educators and even students, had been doxed and attacked online, following the Sengkang Green Primary School incident. Teachers, who dedicate their life nurturing our children, should never have to fear harassment simply for doing their jobs.

Our Home Team officers, who enforce laws and respond to emergencies, have at times, been filmed, misrepresented and vilified online, such as the 2021 Yishun case, where a video falsely accused Police Officers of bullying an elderly woman. Investigations later showed that the Police were actually helping the woman, not harassing her, and a POFMA correction was issued.

These incidents illustrate how misinformation can quickly erode trust and endanger the morale of those who serve the public. This Bill rightly introduces a new offence under the Miscellaneous Offences, Public Order and Nuisance Act for publishing an officer's identity, together with a falsehood, when done to deter or punish them for carrying out their duties.

It also amends POHA to remove the need to prove that the officer suffered harassment or distress. This shifts the focus where it belongs on the offenders' intent, not the victim's reaction. However, three clarifications may help strengthen this protection further.

Firstly, on falsehood threshold, will the Government confirm that material falsehoods suffice and that offenders cannot escape liability by claiming the lie was minor or disguised in humour, sarcasm or emojis? I ask this because such tongue-in-cheek posts can still mislead the public and incite, ridicule or harass our officers who are carrying out their duties.

Second is on policy distinction. When will agencies invoke POFMA to correct misinformation and when will they use the new doxxing with falsehood offence to protect individual officers? A short policy note would be helpful to agencies, employers and even unions, who can help to apply the law consistently. I ask this because operational clarity prevents hesitation. Agencies and unions must know which legal route to take swiftly to safeguard their officers and restore public confidence.

My third point is on coverage clarity. Will protection also extend to outsourced essential workers, such as cleaners, healthcare assistants, or transport enforcement officers, who perform public duties, but are not statutory officers. I ask this because similarly, these workers will face some public exposure – same risk as civil servants – yet they lack the institutional protection or recourse channels available to them.

As a labour MP, I am heartened that this Bill recognises both public servants and public service workers. The latter includes nurses, our Town Council staff and contract personnel who keep Singapore running every day. Their service deserves the same protection and respect.

Unions, such as the Healthcare Services Employees Union and the Singapore Teachers' Union, have long advocated these protections, standing beside our workers who face harassment or stigma during the course of duty.

We must ensure that every person who serves the public, regardless of employer, can do so safely and with dignity. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, this Bill strengthens justice and safety in our society. It does not merely punish the perpetrators; it also protects those who are vulnerable and safeguards the dignity of public officers who have shown total dedication in performing their duty. Through these amendments, we enhance penalties for cyber scams, extend protection to public officers and frontline workers, and ensure that our laws remain relevant in this digital era. In short, justice is not just about meting out punishment – it is about preserving trust, safety and humanity.

(In English): Mr Speaker, this Bill represents an important step in strengthening both justice and trust. By deterring scams, we protect our seniors, our workers and our families. By protecting our officers and public service workers, we safeguard those who uphold the values of duty, care and compassion.

Good law leaves no easy exits for bad actors and gives confidence to those who protect us. With this Bill, we will send a clear signal that Singapore stands firm against harm and stands with those who protect and serve our people. Notwithstanding the clarifications I sought, I support this Bill.

Mr Henry Kwek.

Mr Speaker, I support this Bill and the suite of changes it makes. Given its breadth, I will focus my remarks on three areas: one, tackling global scams and online crimes while protecting innovation; two, a calibrated approach to accountability for 14-to-17-year-olds; and three, improving proportionality by resolving the inflexibility of mandatory caning.

Let me first talk about our efforts to target operators of crime. I support forward-looking legislation that go after the operators – scam networks, credential abuse, deepfakes, child sexual abuse material (CSAM) creators – without impeding technological progress.

Indeed, the impact of such crimes is immense. Just take scams. Since 2019, Singaporeans have lost over S$3 billion to scams. In 2024 alone, losses were over S$1.1 billion. In the first half of this year, government-official impersonation scams almost reach 1,800, nearly triple year-on-year. Victims, like many of my fellow Members have mentioned, are disproportionately elderly, vulnerable or desperate. Many lose their life savings and suffer deep hardship.

Mr Speaker, technology is like the wind: swift, powerful and unstoppable. But when a forest fire breaks out, we do not try to stop the wind; we go after the arsonists of that forest fire.

This Bill does just that. It focuses on those who exploit technology for harm – organised crime networks, scam operators and credential traffickers.

Criminalising the misuse of another's identity or SIM registration cuts off the pathways in which scams spread. Each stolen credential is a spark, each mule account, a dry branch. Therefore, this Bill builds the firebreaks we need while keeping the wind free so that legitimate innovation can grow.

Let me next turn to calibrated charging for 14- to 17-year-olds. This Bill implements and clarifies the 2019 Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA) changes to treat ages 14 to below 18 as young persons and expands Youth Court coverage while preserving the ability to transmit serious or repeat cases to the State Courts or the High Court, so that adequate penalties can be imposed where warranted.

Many teenagers today are better informed and more mature, compared to youths decades ago. For very serious crimes, we should hold them responsible. But maturity is a continuum; one does not gain wisdom and fortitude at a precise birthday.

To avoid the cliff effect, where the full weight of adult liability falls on, say, a 14-year-old, I urge the Government, led by the Ministry of Law, to adopt a graduated, age-sensitive charging approach for those from 14 to18, which means calibrating charging positions and legal submissions based on age, maturity and context, and reserving adult-style positions for truly serious crimes.

Lastly, I welcome the calibrated caning penalties for 22 offences while introducing caning as a penalty for scamming. Today, multiple statutes impose minimum strokes and leave the Court with no room to calibrate punishment. It is a one-size-fits-all penalties for those laws.

But justice can be tempered with mercy. The new flexibility from this Bill for 22 offences provides judicial discretion to weigh mitigation factors on a case-by-case basis, for example, first-offender status, coercion or duress, genuine remorse, or early plea.

Proportionality is not leniency. It is the law taking full account of both harm and human circumstances. At the same time, given the severe impact of scamming, I fully support the inclusion of caning penalties for scamming crimes.

Let me conclude, this Bill goes after the operators of technology scams and online scams – the arsonists – without stifling the impact of technology. It also aligns accountability with maturity, and it restores judicial discretion when it is due. It protects our people and our progress while keeping justice fair and firm. With that, I support the Bill.

Mr David Hoe.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. This Bill does a few important things. It strengthens our laws against scams, amends sexual offences, raises penalties for causing or allowing fatal abuse to vulnerable victims, revises sentencing for young offenders and updates older provisions to fit today's realities.

At its core, it defines new offences, allowing caning for some scam-related crimes, removes caning from others, and refines how we deal with youths and vulnerable persons.

In this response, I will focus on deterring scams through tougher and more targeted measures. This is close to my heart. In Clementi, I have walked the ground and sought help for my residents who fell into victims of scams. Their stories are heartbreaking and even more painful when I learnt how their families are affected.

Let me place on record by saying that I agree with the direction to introduce caning for scam-related offences. However, I would like to highlight four clarifications and considerations.

The first is on discretionary caning and proportionality. For scam-related offences such as offenders who facilitate scams such as the misuse of SIM cards, disclosing access credentials such as Singpass account, this Bill allows for up to 12 strokes of the cane under discretionary caning. I support this direction.

You see, scams can wipe out the life savings of many and shatter families. A strong deterrence is justified. However, I would like to better understand how the upper limit of 12 strokes was set. For instance, was the upper limit of 12 strokes benchmarked against other offences with similar harm and culpability? Were the existing caning-eligible offences considered and used as comparisons when setting this upper limit and if so, what was the principle for alignment?

I am glad to hear earlier that the upper limit has room for review. On this note, we should be clear what caning is not. It is not a silver bullet.

This brings me to my second point on the economics of deterrence. As someone who had spent years teaching economics, I tend to think of deterrence as a simple equation. Does the expected cost outweigh the expected benefit?

In my view, the expected cost of committing a crime depends on three things. One, severity – how harsh that punishment is. Two, certainty – how likely you are to be caught and punished. And three, speed – how fast the punishment happens.

In short, deterrence, in my view, mentions three things: severity, certainty and speed. Because if scammers believe they never will, or are unlikely to be caught, perhaps because they are hiding behind a fake or an anonymous account, or operate outside of Singapore, then harsher penalties might not make much of a difference. So, beyond raising penalties, we should raise the certainty, visibility and speed of enforcement and punishment.

At the end of the day, we measure what is important to us. In this regard, the Government should consider publishing regular updates on scam activities – how many were reported, caught, and continue amplifying public communications. Why? Because this sends a clear signal that Singapore does not just punish harshly, but we also catch swiftly, in this context of scam activities.

My third point is cross-border scams. Many scams that hit Singapore are not run from here. They are operated overseas, layered through syndicates. In late October, Police named 27 Singaporeans and seven Malaysians suspected of running a Cambodian-based syndicate scam ring targeting Singapore believed to be behind at least 438 cases and $41 million in losses. Police said that they are working with Interpol to issue red notices because these suspects are out of Singapore.

This fact underlines a simple point. The threat of caning here may not deter someone who sits overseas or never plans to set foot in Singapore. The answer then, in my view, has to be stronger and faster cross-border cooperation, coordination and enforcement. Singapore already works with partners within ASEAN, INTERPOL and other countries. My point is, there needs to be a continued deepening of mutual legal assistance channel bilaterally and multilaterally. This may involve a memorandum of understanding between authorities and their counterparts abroad on things like digital evidence requests, standard operating timelines, as well as having dedicated offices to oversee and expedite such cross-border coordination and collaboration.

My last point, beyond strengthening our laws against scammers, we must continue to build a scam-resilient society. This is because the law cannot carry full load. We have to build habits, skills, systems that help Singaporeans to determine scams early and act fast. We want a vigilant public not a fearful one. Singapore must never become a place that we suspect every single message and live in constant anxiety. We can teach this balance from young. Pause, check, then decide when encountering something suspicious. In this regard, we should consider incorporating more practical scam education within our schools and community to enable our ability to detect scam activities.

Today, our Character and Citizenship Education classes teach students to evaluate and verify credibility of online information sources to recognise and report different types of online scams, including phishing, online purchase scams and Internet love scams. However, as scams continue to evolve, we must continue to do more to educate or being able to identify deepfakes. We have made progress through Police Anti-Scam Command ScamShield, but I think we can go further. Just as from time to time at work, we have to take cybersecurity quizzes, I wonder if we can have scam quizzes built into ScamShield. And perhaps users who complete the quizzes could also earn some reward or incentive. For example, if you can get 20 or 30 questions right, a pretty high bar, it could entail you to have additional Community Development Council vouchers. The goal, it is really just to be more scam resilient.

On another note, I also just want to mention that part of scam resilience is also fighting the stigma associated with the person falling prey to scams. Speak to scam victims, you know that often times they feel shame and fear, viewed as silly or naive by their loved ones or others or even being blamed for their own troubles. Therefore, many may choose to stay silent and not even report being scammed; and scammers will rejoice in their silence. So, we must, hence, fight this stigma, make early help the norm.

Our public message must be simple: report quickly, you are not alone, every minute counts. Also, a "report once" pathway would give each victim a single case reference, would spare them from repeating the painful details from agencies to agencies or bank to bank. Just one reference number, find the details all there. Giving scam victims discretion and privacy is equally important as well, including ensuring private spaces for conversations and the option to bring someone else along.

We should also consider inviting those who wish to step forward to tell their stories in a safe and respectful setting. Because I have learned that sharing stories is powerful, because then survivors choose to share, even anonymously, they show others it is okay to seek help. It reduces the shame that keeps many silent and turn painful experiences into lessons that protect and empower others.

In my view, if we pair strong laws and with early help, empathy at the front line and survival voices that breaks the stigma, we reduce shame, shorten response time and improve recovery. This is how we stay vigilant without becoming fearful, keep trust alive while protecting one another.

I would like to close by noting that the Bill strengthens our hand against scammers and I welcome it. But deterrence or true deterrence does not just come from harsher punishment alone. It comes from a system that is swift, certain and smart. Swift in catching offenders, certain in delivering justice and smart in building public awareness. Because at the end of day, the best deterrence is not fear of punishment. It is a society that is alert, resilient and one step ahead of scammers.

Mr Melvin Yong.

Sir, I stand in support of the Bill which seeks to amend the Penal Code and other related legislation to update our criminal laws. Sir, the scope of this Bill is vast, I will focus my speech today on scam-related crimes and the proposal to revise caning penalties for certain offences, including introducing caning for scams and scams-related offences.

I read with great concern about the recent media coverage of Singaporeans being involved in scam syndicate operations in Cambodia. In one of the reported cases, a Singaporean was alleged to be the leader of the crime ring, targeting Singaporeans in government impersonation scams. Their use of the Singaporean accent was meant to reassure the victims that the calls were genuine.

Scams are a major source of crime in Singapore. Today, we are far more likely to get scammed online than to be robbed in the streets. In the first half of 2025, victims lost $456 million, with almost 20,000 cases reported. These figures are a representation that scam cases continue to plague our country. According to statistics by the Police, scam victims lost $1.1 billion in 2024 and more than $651 million in 2023.

When I first joined the Police in 1995, cheating cases were common but limited largely to face-to-face interactions. Over time, as Singapore's digital penetration grew, scam archetypes evolved to love scams on WeChat to the current situation, where so many variants of scams affect different segments of our population. The Bill's proposal to introduce mandatory caning for offenders of scams is, therefore, highly welcomed and timely, as we need to send a clear signal that our legal system has no tolerance for those who scam and prey on others. However, when it comes to enforcement, it is often the most vulnerable who are recruited as mules, who are caught. Syndicate bosses are often based offshore and it can be tough for our local law enforcement to take them to task. I would, therefore, like to ask how the SPF are working with the foreign enforcement agencies, including with Interpol and member agencies of the Anti-Money Laundering Case Coordination and Collaboration Network (AC3N) to take these criminal masterminds to task.

For offences with proposed discretionary caning, such as those involving individuals who launder scam proceeds, supply SIM cards or provide Singpass credentials, I would like to ask whether sentencing guidelines will be made available to the Courts and, if so, what would these sentencing guidelines be? Would vulnerable offenders, such as youths and those with mild intellectual disabilities, be given greater leniency if they are preyed upon and roped into scam operations? How can we do more to protect these vulnerable individuals from being taken advantage of by the scam syndicates?

Sir, let me next talk about a small but growing variant of scams that threaten Singapore's ambition to become a live entertainment hub. Between 2023 and 2024, 1,500 people lost about $1.1 million in scams due to the sale of concert tickets by online third-party resellers. Ticket scams pertaining to live entertainment events have been a growing concern for the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE). Consumers tell us that ticket scams are a particular area of concern as many event goers try to get tickets to A-list events at all costs. Many of them simply cannot buy tickets on the primary market due to the presence of bots. They try all means possible to attend the events by their favourite artiste, even at the risk of purchasing fake tickets.

Members would recall reading news articles about ticket scams whenever an A-list event takes place in Singapore, from Taylor Swift to Coldplay to Andy Lau. The Taylor Swift Eras Tour concert that was held in Singapore in March 2024, became an unfortunate incident where many locals and international consumers became scam victims. The Consumer Protection Review Panel, which I co-chair, is looking into this issue deeply.

For example, the Panel is actively engaging ticket service platforms to explore establishing authorised ticket sales platforms to provide consumers with greater certainty that tickets resold on proper platforms are legitimate. Other suggestions, include phasing out paper tickets and to only have digital tickets with dynamic QR codes. But while the industry players and CASE do our best to tackle the issue, we cannot succeed in eradicating the problem of ticket scams without support from the Government. Some overseas jurisdictions with thriving entertainment industries, such as in Japan and in Taiwan, have already rolled out anti-ticketing scam laws to tackle this issue, something which I hope the Government would also consider adopting.

Sir, we must address the variant of ticketing scams more seriously, despite its relatively smaller losses when compared to the other scams. Because if left unaddressed, these scams could threaten to derail Singapore's efforts to anchor ourselves as the region's entertainment hub.

In closing, the amendments proposed under the Bill are timely, as it will send a strong signal that tackling scams continue to be a national priority. We must continue to act firmly against scam syndicates, while having a care on how we treat vulnerable citizens who are roped into scam operations. I also urge the Ministry to also look into how we can deal with ticketing scams more decisively, as it affects a large number of consumers. Mr Speaker, with that, I support the Bill.

Mr Foo Cexiang.

Mr Speaker, my speech will focus on the introduction of caning for scams-related offences. It is an understatement today that scams are the scourge of societies. According to the SPF's Mid-Year Scam and Cybercrime Brief 2025, there were 22,476 scam and cybercrime cases from January to June this year and the amount lost to scams was about $456 million. So, to put this into perspective, this averages out to be about more than 120 of such cases each day, more than five cases an hour. In terms of losses, an average of $2.5 million lost each day to scams.

These figures are astonishing to say the least. In fact, the monies lost to scams are not representative of the entire cost of such criminal enterprises for society because if we tabulate the man-hours and other valuable resources deployed to combat scams, then the total amount would be many times that, just the loss quantum.

The motivation of scammers is clear, their ill-gotten rewards are enormous, vis-à-vis the risks. All these, at the expense of their victims. I believe all of us have met scam victims at our meet-the-people sessions and have heard their pleas for help, as many Members have pointed out. It is heartbreaking to hear of Singaporeans having their honest and hard-earned monies despicably stolen from them.

In fact, just two weeks ago, a family member of mine almost fell victim to one such scam. I do not know whether the scammer knew that I was going to make a speech in Parliament so soon. So, she received a call from someone claiming to be a Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) officer, who told her that her bank account had been compromised for illegal transactions and then, assured her that he would help her to resolve the issue. He then told her to lock herself in the room as he guided her through the process via video call and he told her many times not to let anyone know in the family. So, flustered and helpless, my family member ended up spending several hours on the call with this scammer. And in this time, she set up a crypto-currency account, she has never learned about crypto before. She terminated an investment savings account and transferred the funds from the investment savings account to her savings account. But fortunately for her, she informed my wife after the call, who then informed me and we were able to stop any losses in time.

But this is a very common modus operandi of scammers now. They get into the minds of their victims by first sending them into a panic mode and then, assure them that they can help by impersonating themselves as public officials. Very sinister. And I told my family member: I said when they told you to lock yourself in a room and not tell anyone, alarm bells should have started ringing in your head! But she told me that during the entire process she was almost in a trance-like state. I think similar to what some of the other Members have shared. So, my family member was fortunate to have family members around. But I worry very much for my residents who are seniors, who stay alone and I have also met residents who are even younger than me all preyed to the similar tactics that I have just shared.

So, no condemnation leveled against scams and scammers to me would be considered unjust. And clearly, the existing sanctions are not adequate and do not effectively deter scammers and potential scammers.

So, it is, therefore, timely that this Bill seeks to enhance the penalties for scams offences. With this as context, I would like to raise several points and clarifications for the Senior Minister of State's response.

First, clause 63 of the Bill inserts a new section 416B in the Penal Code. In this new section, with respect to the element of deceit by way of remote communications, the operative threshold is "mainly", mainly via digital or remote means. But in this current day and age, almost all our daily communications are arguably "mainly" done through digital and remote means, whether it is emails, social media, text messaging. So, I want to find out what is the rationale for this statutory requirement and how should the word "mainly" be legally interpreted?

Second, the Bill introduces "mandatory" and "discretionary" caning. Scammers, members and recruiters of scam syndicates will face mandatory caning of at least six strokes, while scam mules who enable scammers in certain ways will face discretionary caning of up to 12 strokes.

Recently, in The Straits Times, 17 July 2025, 15 people were reportedly being investigated for sharing their Singpass credentials, some used to open bank accounts and register for mobile phone lines for scam purposes. Over the weekend, CNA also reported that the Police had arrested 38 people acting as money mules for scammers, having sold or rented their YouTrip accounts for monetary gains. The same article also reports a "surge in such scam cases" in the months of September and October.

So, in light of what I have shared, my question is: why is caning not made mandatory for scam mules as well, in particular, the mules who know that they are enabling or likely to enable scrams? Because Mr Speaker, scammers, members and recruiters of scam syndicates and the scam mules, all these participants are essential to the operations of the scam enterprise. So, what is the rationale for such a distinction between caning to be meted out to these various players in the ecosystem?

Third, impersonation of public officials. SPF's Mid-Year Scam and Cybercrime Brief 2025 also reported that "Government officials impersonation scams have almost tripled" in the first six months of 2025. And recently, on 26 October 2025, the Police shared that they had arrested 24 persons, investigating another nine for their suspected involvement in a case of government officials' impersonation scam. The impersonation of government officials is probably the most deplorable of the various types of scams we have discussed today because it carries the very real danger of also undermining the public's confidence in the Government and the integrity and security of our services.

We have all heard feedback that in a bid to avoid scammers, many Singaporeans have chosen either not to answer any calls from unknown or private numbers. When they receive SMS-es that are sent by official sources, they read it with apprehension and suspicion. So, the fear of being scammed has affected us all. In this vein, would the Ministry consider imposing even more severe penalties for scam-related offences, when there is an element of Government impersonation, such as by doubling the mandatory number of strokes, for example?

Mr Speaker, I heard Mr Fadli Fawzi's concern earlier with the use of caning as a punishment and he raised how we are moving away from mandatory caning for vandalism offences in this same Bill. Instead, he suggested that we strengthen enforcement bite to be more effective.

I would argue that we need both effective enforcement and deterrent in the form of caning to deal with the scourge of scams. I will go further to say that we are able to remove mandatory caning for vandalism today and discussing it in this Bill because we have successfully deterred the act of vandalism from taking root in society in Singapore where there was a very threat several decades ago. So, we should do the same now for scams and if we are similarly successful as we were or we are with vandalism, we can review this in the future as well.

Mr Speaker, the amendments in this Bill demonstrate the Government's practical and hard-nosed approach to be more effective in protecting our people while also reviewing policies in keeping with the times. We enact harsh laws but not after deep and careful consideration to protect the everyday Singaporean – honest, hardworking, resilient and really just doing his or her best for their families.

So, Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my clarifications, I support of the Bill.

Mr Cai Yinzhou.

Mr Speaker, the Bill updates the Penal Code and other legislations, strengthening the legal framework for urgent issues, like scams, and serious crimes, like abuse. This aligns with Singapore's history of strengthening laws against trends in crime.

I support the Bill but seek clarification firstly on complementary social and support measures to tackle the scourge of scams between deterrence and dialogue. The Bill distinguishes money mules from scam syndicate leaders, introducing mandatory caning for scammers and discretionary caning for money mules. This toughens measures against scams, addressing a national issue. The message is clear, "If you dare to scam Singaporeans, this is the price you pay."

This move is crucial due to devastating losses: over $3.4 billion since 2019, with a record $1.1 billion in 2024. But beyond financial figures, victims have experienced ruined family relationships, depression and some even turned to suicide.

Caning is, therefore, an effective deterrent in reducing loan shark harassment, but I have two clarifications on this.

First is for those above 50 years old where caning is unsuitable, how will alternative penalties be applied? And whether these enhanced penalties will immediately apply to the 27 Singaporeans allegedly found to be part of the Cambodian scam syndicate, if found guilty?

While the Bill assigns lower culpability to money mules, their punishment is still significant. I support the new offences but suggest new ways to augment the effectiveness. As criminal lawyers note, deterrence is not the only crime control method; focusing solely on increased penalties might ignore root issues.

Mules might be financially disadvantaged, incentivised by financial hardship to sell Singpass details or personal access. A worrying trend involves youths becoming scam mules; and a misconception that only elderly are victims when those in the 21 to 59 age group, who might be digitally native and overconfident, thereby constituting most victims. Greater deterrence therefore may not address economic hardship or coercion, but our approach needs to be balanced, focusing on financial literacy and legitimate employment.

Given the heavy penalties for potential money mules, public education on offence severity is needed, especially demographics of those less aware. We must also incorporate these messaging, using technology, like the ScamShield app, a powerful intelligence network against scam trends. Another suggestion includes encouraging money mules to become informants, aligning with Government efforts against local scam enablers, where those actively cooperating with authorities by providing information on scam operations could receive reduced sentencing.

But often the investigation of potential money mules might be complex and lengthy. It is hard to distinguish those who participate as a mule versus those whose personal information might have been misused and compromised.

During investigation, these individuals might face strict restrictions, including frozen bank accounts, affected credit ratings, making it hard to receive salaries, to pay bills or to receive Government benefits. This significantly impacts those already struggling financially. Can the Minister, therefore, clarify interim measures and collaborations with banks to support the increasing number of Singaporeans implicated in scam-related investigations but might not be convicted?

Next, I will speak about strengthening protections for vulnerable victims against abuse.

The Bill proposes increasing maximum jail term for fatal abuse of vulnerable victims from 20 years to life imprisonment of up to 30 years. This tool ensures penalties for the "worst of the worst" egregious cases. Despite serious penalties for abuse, advocates for vulnerable groups, like domestic helpers, highlight root causes lie in power disparity and victims' fear-driven difficulty in seeking help, sometimes due to social isolation.

Increased abuse penalties also need to come with complementary protection and empowerment for potential victims, especially for early intervention. For example, migrant domestic worker abuse averaged 320 reports annually from 2020 to 2024. Existing support measures can be expanded through awareness of help avenues and increased checks on these foreign domestic workers.

Enhanced penalties also apply to abuse of children under 14 and vulnerable persons. Beyond age, if I may suggest stipulating definitions of vulnerable persons for seniors or even those with disabilities using metrics, like the Activities of Daily Living score, which is an established tool for measuring functional ability.

In conclusion, I strongly support this Bill's decisive move to address crime threats and introduce tougher penalties. Notwithstanding these clarifications, I support the Bill.

Ms Lee Hui Ying.

Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. The nature of crime is rapidly changing and I am glad the Government is taking steps to update our laws to keep pace. The legislative amendments protect our people both by enhancing deterrence and ensuring that, where deterrence is met with recalcitrance, the offenders receive rehabilitation and a chance to mend their ways.

In supporting this Bill, I would like to expand upon two areas for the Government's consideration. First, the reach of penalties for scam-related offences. Second, the revision of caning penalties. In chess, the king is the most important piece, it can determine victory or defeat and is the most strategic centre of the game. Like the chess king, the kingpin is crucial to the overall strategy. The kingpin is the one that defines the game.

First, can I ask the Minister, what steps are we taking to target the leaders of scam syndicates, in other words, the kingpin? The new penalties currently apply to three categories of offenders. First, those who perpetrate scams or other forms of cheating; those who are members of or recruit members for scam syndicates; and those who facilitate the scams, such as through mule activities, by supplying the scammers with bank accounts, Singpass accounts and SIM cards.

These persons who should be charged with these penalties are likely to be low-level operatives. While this would improve deterrence and disrupt scam networks, we would not be rid of scams until we apprehend the principals and the financiers, and demolish scam networks entirely. Scams today, are intricate supply chains, which include clearly defined functions of data acquisition, scripting, operations and even technology. The key to sustaining such operations are the key decision makers, in other words, the kingpin, to put the supply chain together. May I ask if the new penalties are intended to also target the kingpins for a more comprehensive approach or if the Organised Crime Act may be invoked here for investigative powers?

For a solution to be sustainable, it must lower the incentive for scammers by cancelling out the profitability. Scams have grown increasingly sophisticated and transnational, exploiting digital platforms and encrypted communication channels that make enforcement challenging. May I ask what plans does the Government have in terms of implementing more robust industry safeguards, disrupting communication channels for syndicates, especially intractable ones, like Telegram and the Dark Web, and strengthening cross-border collaborations to tackle the globalisation of scams?

How are we handling the transnational nature of scam offences? While local laws have their place, many cyber-enabled scams cross international boundaries such that the lines in jurisdictions are blurred. Scam centres are based in other countries, such as Cambodia and Myanmar, but their victims are our Singaporeans. Does the Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill apply or are we using our diplomatic channels to motivate enforcement? Are we able to send the SPF to those countries to provide support or technical assistance?

While we fight to support Singaporeans from scams, it is worrying to hear that there are Singaporeans being involved in leading scam networks. For example, three Singaporeans and 17 Singapore-registered entities were recently sanctioned by the US for alleged involvement in transnational crypto scam activities linked to a Cambodian conglomerate. Why were these links not discovered by us earlier? What action is our Government taking and are there checks being done to ensure no other Singaporeans are implicated? There may also be a need to implement sufficient safeguards for persons based in Singapore vis-à-vis foreign law risks.

Beyond the legal aspect, the importance of public education cannot be understated as each individual is his/her own first line of defence against scams. How can we detect and respond more quickly to new modalities of scams? How do we then shorten the time and respond quicker between detection and public education efforts? What plans are in place to monitor the impact of current outreach and education efforts and to increase their effectiveness amid the evolving nature of scams?

On the flipside, it is critical that these measures avoid a chilling effect, whereby people cross the threshold from reasonable caution to pervasive distrust of all online activity, even the legitimate ones. In this ever-evolving digital world, we must empower our people to be prudent without pulling back unnecessarily. Similarly, security measures should be carefully assessed before implementation to ensure that they do not make legitimate online processes unjustifiably onerous for users.

Second, our approach to exclude caning penalties based on age. Currently, Singapore's maximum age for caning is 50 years old. If age was intended to be a proxy of physical suitability, we should review if it is appropriate to increase the maximum age to 60, in view of our lengthening health-spans. Our average health-span, defined as years of good health, is now at 75, as shared by the Prime Minister, at the National Day Rally. Revising the caning age limit upwards would align with the trend towards an ageing society whereby, assuming status quo in crime rates, the average age of offenders is expected to increase year on year. This ensures that deterrence stays relevant and effective even as the age profile of our population changes. This also avoids situations that may seem unjust where offenders may be spared simply because they are caught and sentenced after they pass the age of 50. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, I support this Bill. It strengthens the deterrent effect of penalties whilst simultaneously ensuring that offenders have opportunities for rehabilitation, achieving both objectives.

Scam cases are emerging constantly. The new penalties target scam perpetrators, gang members and recruiters, as well as those who provide SIM cards or Singpass credentials to criminals. These individuals may not hold high positions within scam syndicates.

As the saying goes, "to catch bandits, first catch their leader." I hope the Minister can clarify whether, from a more comprehensive perspective, the new penalties are also targeting the masterminds behind criminal syndicates.

The Bill also covers caning. Currently, the age limit for caning is at 50 years old. However, with longer healthy lifespan and society ageing, should we consider reviewing and raising this limit to 60 years old? I believe this would better reflect the current situation in our society and would be more effective as a deterrent.

(In English): Mr Speaker, notwithstanding these points for clarification and consideration, I express my full support for this Bill. These amendments are timely, not just in offering tangible protection to Singaporeans, but also in inspiring public confidence that our criminal justice system is sensitive to emerging needs, especially in the realm of scams, it sends a clear signal that new ways to commit old crimes will be met with new penalties.

Senior Minister of State Sim Ann.

Mr Speaker, let me thank Members for their questions and their strong support for the amendments.

Let me first touch on the amendments to sexual offences. Ms Joan Pereira highlighted bullying cases which involve the distribution of intimate images of minors. We agree that a firm stance should be taken against such acts. Let me assure Ms Pereira that this is already an offence under the Penal Code which attracts severe punishment. I also thank Ms Pereira for her suggestions regarding upstream preventive measures and downstream victim support and agree that these are important to complement the proposals in the Bill. Measures have, indeed, been put in place to help victims of sexual offences, including minors, through the criminal justice process.

Mr Xie Yao Quan suggested introducing discretionary caning for administrators of online locations circulating obscene material. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) will continue to monitor the situation and assess if there is a need to review the penalties further.

Next, on the enhanced penalties for fatal abuse of vulnerable victims. Mr Cai Yinzhou highlighted that beyond increasing the penalties for abuse of vulnerable victims, it is also important to have upstream preventive measures. We agree. Such measures have been put in place by the Ministry of Social and Family Development and Ministry of Manpower.

Mr Cai also suggested including seniors and persons with disabilities within the definition of vulnerable persons. Under our current laws, a "vulnerable person" refers to those who, due to mental or physical infirmity, disability or incapacity, are substantially unable to protect themselves from abuse, neglect or self-neglect. Seniors and persons with disabilities who meet this definition will be protected by the enhanced penalties we propose to impose on their abusers.