Hansard, Wednesday, 5 November 2025

1 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Ministry will advise all Government agencies to avoid having unfair clauses in all Government tender specifications, in view of the feedback from the Singapore Institute of Architects on the unfair clauses in the Singapore University of Social Sciences' tender documents.

Speaker, Government agencies are required to conduct procurements in a fair manner. To guide agencies, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) provides templates with contractual terms and conditions which set out the responsibilities of the parties. These templates are developed in consultation with key sector agencies to reflect industry norms, particularly for major categories like construction, and information and communications technology (ICT). For example, the Standard Consultancy Agreement (SCA), used by Government agencies for construction-related consultancy services, states that agencies will pay for additional services not covered by the contract.

Mr Ang.

I thank the Minister for the reply. I would like to first declare that I am the CEO of Strides Premier, a company that from time to time participates in Government tenders.

I understand that the Government departments have the duty to safeguard public money and not overpay private companies that provide services through Government contracts. At the same time, the Government also has a responsibility to support small and medium enterprises (SMEs), especially during the current climate of economic uncertainty. Thus, I hope the Minister will consider my supplementary question to remove or tweak three common clauses in Government contracts or tenders that SMEs find hard to comply with.

Firstly, the clause on unlimited liability, regardless of contract value, similar to the clause required by the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS) as reported in the press. Such a clause can be onerous to our SMEs and can even bankrupt them.

Secondly, some other clauses in the Government contracts have limited milestone payments. Very often, Government agencies will only make the bulk of the payment at the end of the project, creating potential cash flow problems for SMEs participating in Government tenders.

And thirdly, some Government tenders require contractors to make unlimited changes to design requirements without additional payment, similar to those required by SUSS. The tender document states that they will make changes and the changes will not be paid, even though, as the Minister said, what is not stated in the tender is supposed to be paid. But the tender says that it will not be paid in the first place. Any design change will cost money and someone has to pay for it. There is no free lunch.

Thus, I hope the Minister could advise the various Government departments to consider tweaking such demanding clauses.

I thank the Member for his supplementary question, which raises a couple of important points. Let me address them in turn.

The first is to make a distinction between SUSS and Government. Strictly speaking, SUSS is an autonomous university (AU). AUs are independent corporate entities and not Government agencies, and this gives them the autonomy to handle operational and corporate service matters according to their own policies and procedures. Nevertheless, AUs are expected to adhere to fundamental procurement principles – of value-for-money, transparency, and open and fair competition; and we encourage them to align broadly.

So, I just wanted to make that distinction, because in the particular instance that Mr Ang is referring to, I would not go into the details because it is between different parties, but my understanding is that those contract terms are not in exactly the same terms as the Government standard contracting terms. That is the first point.

The second point is that for such contracts, there are really three broad groups. One is pure Government. Then, there are those which are not exactly Government, but like SUSS or other agencies, are expected to follow Government, but have much broader leeway to depart or set their own terms. And then, third, there is the private sector.

So, I will come back to these three, but just let me address first the specific queries that Mr Ang had raised.

We do recognise the need to support enterprises in this economic environment, even as we continue to achieve value-for-money for public spending. So, on the point about making unlimited design changes, I had shared earlier that under the SCA, which is what the Government follows, the one that is used for construction-related consultancy services, agencies will pay for additional services not covered by the contract, such as further changes after design sign-off.

Then, with respect to unlimited liability, in November 2024, we added an option in the SCA to limit consultants' contractual liability. And then, as announced by Minister for National Development Mr Chee Hong Tat, last month, we will be making this mandatory starting from 1 December 2025. So, in other words, going forward, there will be limited liability.

Though these changes have only been applied to the SCA, agencies are expected to be fair to suppliers in all their contracts, facilitated by standard contract templates, such as the Tender Lite Conditions of Contract.

And on the question of milestones, Government agencies typically make payments to their suppliers at specified milestones during the course of the project. For instance, construction contractors are usually paid every month, based on monthly progress payments. MOF has also provided agencies with guidelines for more frequent payment milestones. Besides this, the Government has introduced Tender Lite to simplify procurement in tenders with estimated procurement value up to $1 million. This makes it easier for businesses, especially SMEs, to access Government procurement opportunities.

MOF has worked closely with partners, including the Singapore Business Federation, the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises, and sector-specific trade associations to develop Tender Lite. We will continue to partner industry to look for ways to ease doing business with Government.

That said, Mr Ang's supplementary question raises a broader issue, which is that of fair contracting. The Government is actually encouraging the industry, especially the construction industry but across the board, to have collaborative contracting and fair clauses. The old way of approaching contracts is very much a win-lose. The lawyers on one side will want to get everything for their client. The lawyers on the other side will obviously want to do the same. But contracts for such procurement should not be win-lose. You should try to see how you can make it win-win. Because if every party has a vested interest in the contract to make it succeed, that would be better. And if it is completely one-sided, then after a while the other side will either not want to participate or the relationship will break down.

And this needs a change of mindset. Many of the contracts out there, especially in the private sector, which are not mandated by Government, are in old standard forms. It is very difficult to get lawyers to shift from standard forms. They like their precedents. My message, really, to the industry, especially the built environment industry, is that we are trying to effect change. That change is collaborative contracting where it is win-win, and fair clauses.

That leads to the question of what is fair. Usually, that is a matter of negotiation. But it is difficult when you have parties who have uneven resources and of different sizes. This is the reason why the SCA and other Government standard contracts can and should be the base reference. You can depart from it, but that should be the standard for what is the expected norm, and the Government has the ability by putting in certain clauses, firstly, to practise it for ourselves, but also to signal to the market what is considered fair. And of course, if we get feedback that clauses are not fair or too onerous, then we can always review and adjust as needed.

2 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether any individuals sanctioned by the US for alleged transnational criminal activities or convicted in Singapore's largest money laundering case had operated tax-exempt family offices locally; (b) what due diligence checks does MAS conduct before granting such incentives; and (c) what systemic reforms have been implemented to prevent criminal networks from exploiting Singapore's family office regime.

Mr Speaker, my response will also address related questions by Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Louis Chua and Ms He Ting Ru from yesterday and today, as well as a written question by Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik scheduled for tomorrow’s Sitting.

Singapore upholds high regulatory standards in our financial system aligned with international standards. It is one reason why many investors view Singapore as a trusted financial hub. Like other global financial centres, having high standards does not mean there will be zero cases involving entities and individuals who break the rules or who fail to comply with our regulatory requirements. What is key is that where wrongdoing is identified, the authorities will investigate thoroughly and take firm enforcement action in accordance with the law.

The money laundering investigations by the Police against Chen Zhi and related associates are ongoing. Enforcement operations were conducted on 30 October 2025. Arising from the enforcement operations, the Police have issued prohibition of disposal orders and seized a range of assets, including properties, cars, bank accounts and securities accounts.

Prior to the indictment of Chen Zhi by the United States (US), our Police had been conducting probes into Chen Zhi and his associates. Thus far, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has identified two Single Family Offices (SFO) funds granted tax incentives that are linked to the sanctioned individuals. MAS has ceased the tax incentives. As investigations are ongoing, I seek Members’ understanding that I am not able to comment further on the details at this stage.

Based on available data over the past three years, about 3% out of 1,300 applications were rejected. Besides the rejected applications, some potential applicants also withdrew their interest to apply before submitting a formal application when questions were posed and requirements were clarified at the pre-application stage.

As part of the tax incentive application process, individuals and entities are screened against databases to check that there are no reports on their involvement in illegal activities such as money laundering and terrorism financing. The SFO fund is also required to open and maintain an account with an MAS-licensed bank and be subject to the bank’s customer due diligence and ongoing monitoring checks, including detecting any unusual or suspicious transactions.

MAS regularly reviews and refines its regulatory regime. It consulted on proposed changes to the SFO regulatory regime in July 2023. In addition to now requiring all SFOs based in Singapore, whether they are receiving tax incentives or not, to maintain bank accounts, SFOs will need to notify MAS upon the commencement of their operations and submit annual returns to MAS. The returns supplement MAS’ ongoing surveillance efforts to maintain the integrity of our financial system.

MAS and the financial industry will continue to review our surveillance and detection capabilities. But we need to adopt a sensible and calibrated approach, and should refrain from a knee-jerk overreaction when cases happen from time to time.

Similar to all major international financial centres, it is not possible to have zero incidents given the complex nature of the financial services industry and the high volume of daily transactions. In addition, combatting financial crime requires a global effort, as illicit fund flows are often cross-border in nature. In the Prince Holdings case, the US seized US$15 billion in Bitcoins and the United Kingdom (UK) froze 19 properties. It was announced yesterday that Hong Kong and Taiwan have also recently moved to seize substantial amounts of assets and have made arrests. All major financial centres have to remain vigilant and work together to combat financial crimes.

Sir, SFOs linked to individuals convicted of money laundering offences represent a very small proportion of the overall sector, at less than 1%. We have to remain open to bona fide family offices and genuine investors, to continue growing our financial services industry and creating good jobs for our people. As at end 2024, the wealth management and private banking functions in banks employed more than 13,000 locals. High net worth clients also use other service providers such as legal and tax advisors, fund administrators and accounting firms.

Compared to other financial centres, many industry stakeholders already consider Singapore to have more stringent due diligence standards for high net worth clients. If we were to tighten further to the point where the processes become overly cumbersome, it will affect our competitiveness, deter legitimate investors and put many local jobs at risk. This is not the outcome we want for Singapore.

There is a Chinese saying that when we open the windows, some flies may also enter. The solution is not to shut our windows and block out sunlight and fresh air. What matters is that we act swiftly to deal with the flies that enter, while also letting in sunlight and fresh air. This is the approach we take in Singapore. Risk-proportionate, not zero-risk.

MAS will continue to take a risk-proportionate approach to maintain our status as a trusted financial centre. MAS expects our financial institutions to do the same, so that we collectively maintain high standards while keeping our system efficient and competitive. Singapore will also continue to work closely with our international counterparts to deter and enforce against bad actors who operate across different jurisdictions.

Mr Kenneth Tiong.

Thank you, Speaker. Three supplementary questions for the Minister, given that Prince Group's scam operations were publicly documented by English language investigative media as early as February 2024 and even earlier in July 2022 in Chinese court notices, did MAS conduct any mid-term reviews of DW Capital Holdings between 2018 and the US action in October 2025? And if not, why not?

The second supplementary question. I thank the Minister for his metaphor. I think there are a lot of flies in the house. So, as more cases of criminality associated with family offices that have been set up in Singapore have come to light, will the Government start to work on the assumption that illicit money generated by scams and other cross-border crime has already penetrated Singapore? And therefore, will the Government mandate enhanced due diligence on existing client relationships across all regulated financial sectors, not just new client onboarding?

The third supplementary question. Further to my previous question, will MAS require all existing 13O and 13U tax incentive holders, and not just new applicants, undergo mandatory rescreening?

Mr Speaker, before I answer the questions, may I ask Mr Tiong to clarify if the Workers' Party's (WP's) position is that we should adopt a zero-risk approach? Or would he agree with me that we should adopt a risk-proportionate approach, set high standards, but also maintain the efficiency and competitiveness of our financial system?

Mr Tiong.

There is a pattern of Ministers and political officeholders asking very rhetorical zeros, like rhetorical questions, which have no meaning, which are like —

Mr Tiong, you could just respond to the Minister.

So, the answer is no. And I do not think it is the Minister's point of view that you should in fact have a zero-risk approach. Because it is impossible. So, he is asking a stupid question.

Minister Chee.

Sir, I think it is not quite appropriate for Mr Tiong to use the word "stupid" when we are having a discussion in this House. I asked him a question to clarify what is his position. And I respectfully ask him to withdraw that comment and to apologise.

Mr Tiong.

I do withdraw that comment. I will maintain that, that question is not a meaningful question. Thank you.

Minister Chee.

Mr Speaker, I am disappointed that Mr Tiong chose to conduct this discussion in this manner. I only wanted to clarify the position so that I can give him a considered response. Earlier, some of his other colleagues, including Mr Pritam Singh, Leader of the Opposition, said that the WP will be a responsible opposition party. And I hope Mr Tiong bears that in mind in our future discourse.

Sir, I thank the WP's Mr Tiong for agreeing with me that we should not adopt a zero-risk approach. I think that is the key point that I wanted to clarify. So, he could have just said that and not add on all the other additional comments.

So, if we agree with that, that it is not practical to adopt a zero-risk approach, then I think we can take a look at what are some of the moves that we can make to maintain high standards on one hand, that is important, we want to remain a trusted financial centre; and at the same time, remain efficient and competitive.

Having high standards is not at odds with being efficient and competitive. If Mr Tiong believes that being inefficient, being overly cumbersome, adopting a zero-risk approach, being overly risk adverse, is the right way to go, I think if we follow his advice, our financial hub status is at risk.

We need to take a risk-proportionate, calibrated approach, just like all other major international financial centres – maintain high standards, deter bad actors, take action against them when we discover wrongdoings. No doubt about that. That is our position. But at the same time, welcome genuine investors, legitimate family offices who want to set up and tap our financial services industry here, and create jobs for our people. That is the approach that Singapore wants to take.

With regard to the first supplementary question from Mr Tiong, the reports that have surfaced, I mentioned in my main reply that the banks have also been taking action in monitoring the situation and we do reject some of the applications, and some of them, they withdrew after the banks asked questions. And there is also a system whereby the financial institutions would file Suspicious Transactions Reports (STRs). This was something that the banks, the financial institutions have been doing earlier. But we need to bear in mind that STRs on their own do not equate to offences being committed. It is just a suspicious transaction that is being highlighted.

For the Police, the Police would have to take a look at these early signals, including the STRs that are filed, and conduct further enquiries on their own, including looking at financial intelligence that they have picked up. And this is what the Police had done. They had also worked with their foreign counterparts to gather further information on the case, because, as I mentioned in my main reply, this case involves not just Singapore, but many other jurisdictions. And after the news broke in October 2025, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) reached out to international counterparts to gather more information on criminality with nexus to Singapore to further these investigations and then took action on 30 October, as I mentioned in my main reply.

Mr Tiong also asked, I think he made a comment that there are many flies in the house. I do not know which "house" Mr Tiong is referring to, but as far as we are aware, the house of Singapore, we do not have many flies.

I mentioned earlier that the SFOs that are involved in money laundering and are convicted for money laundering, represent less than 1%. So, if we accept that we do not want to have zero risk, and we accept that when we open the windows to let in sunlight and fresh air, that there will be some flies, I think less than 1% to me, does not mean that there are many, many flies in this house.

And I also mentioned that when we detect those flies, we deal with them firmly. I think that is the key. Not to aim for zero, not to go for zero risk. But when we detect any cases of wrongdoing, when we detect any flies, we go for them. We take a firm enforcement approach.

MAS will continue to review our rules and our procedures. I think Mr Tiong is mistaken that we only do the checks at the point of application and not on an ongoing basis. I mentioned earlier that the banks do file STRs, and we are also in the process of reviewing what our rules should be, so that we are able to maintain high standards, we are able to deter bad actors from wanting to come to Singapore and importantly, maintain our competitiveness as a financial centre.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

Thank you, Speaker. I have one question for the Minister. It was reported in July that the Minister in his capacity in the MAS had announced that there was an intention to shorten the process of registration for family offices, I think, from 12 months to three months, to make it faster for these offices to open bank accounts and to claim their tax incentives.

So, I am just trying to understand whether this shortened process means that banks would have less time to do their due diligence? And in that sense, there is a possibly increased risk that money laundering indications could slip under the radar, in a sense.

Mr Speaker, I thank Ms Lim for her supplementary question. In the announcement that I made earlier this year, I made it clear – and this is in the public domain, on public record – that we want to look at how we can streamline some of the processes so that the waiting time is not too long, but at the same time, I emphasised this, we must maintain high standards.

Why? Because Singapore is not competing on the basis of being the quickest, the one with the lowest standards, the easiest to set up an account. That is not our competitive advantage. Our competitive advantage is that we are a trusted financial centre. And if we want to achieve that, we need to maintain high standards. So, that is why I emphasised that any process change and any streamlining should not compromise our high standards.

Having said that, the process changes that we are looking at are also not at odds with maintaining high standards. So, I want to assure Ms Lim that it is not to ask the financial institutions to skip steps or to not look out for certain suspicious reports in their due diligence checks. I think we must maintain high standards in that area. But it is really to clarify – so, what are we looking for, to avoid a lot of toing and froing, and second guessing? And it is also to look at how we can streamline the processes so that, through the use of technology, through the use of information sharing, we make it more efficient, so that we do not deter the genuine cases, but we block out and we do not admit the ones that are suspicious and have problems that will affect our high standards and reputation.

It is a fine calibration, but I want to assure Ms Lim that what we recently announced is meant to simplify the requirements and improve operational efficiency. It does not change the anti-money laundering checks that we submit the applicants to. They are still screened, they are still checked.

They will continue to be required to open and maintain a bank account in Singapore, which means that the account will continue to be subject to the bank's customer due diligence and ongoing monitoring checks. That was my clarification with Mr Tiong earlier. It is not just at the point of application. It is ongoing check as well.

So, this is something which I hope the WP, if you agree that we should not adopt a zero-risk approach, but a risk-proportional approach, then I think we need to strike that balance. We do want our financial services industry to remain competitive, our wealth management industry to remain competitive. I mentioned in my main reply that this sector supports at least 13,000 local jobs and may grow further. But at the same time, we do not want to do it in a manner which will compromise high standards and affect our reputation. That is the balance we want to strike.

Mr Louis Chua.

Thank you, Speaker. Let me first declare that I am working in a financial institution which, to my understanding, does businesses with family offices.

Just one supplementary question for the Minister. I agree with the Minister that we should act swiftly in such cases, but at the same time, I am also concerned that yes, while we did carry out the enforcement actions within weeks of the US press release, it may give the impression that we are only doing so after the US has commenced action. And so, I wanted to understand, based on what the Minister has shared and based on the SPF's press release, that from the time we received the STR notification in 2024, what have been the reasons for the delay in terms of the actions taken against this group, and whether it is because of the lack of evidence or what were the rationale behind the one year-plus delay?

Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Chua for his question. It is kind of similar to what Mr Tiong asked earlier. I did explain the process of how we deal with STRs that are filed by the financial institutions. But please allow me to maybe reiterate some of the key points.

So, the financial institutions filed STRs earlier. This was before the US made public that they are taking action against Chen Zhi and his associates. These STRs are part of what the authorities would take into account in assessing whether further investigation will be required and further action will be required.

I think Mr Chua is familiar with how this works. He is from the financial services industry.

STRs on their own may not equate to an offence being committed. It is just to highlight that could be what looks like a suspicious transaction. So, it is an early risk signal that will need to be looked into, but on its own, does not constitute an offence has been committed. So, the Police will need to look at that and consider other sources of relevant information, including working closely with their international counterparts.

If you look at what is happening to the Prince Holdings case, it is not just in Singapore, where the authorities have taken action in recent weeks. I mentioned in my main reply that Hong Kong, Taiwan and the UK are also some of the other jurisdictions that have done the same.

So, I think this is the nature of such operations. We need international collaboration. We need to share intelligence and information with our counterparts, and depending on how they structure their complex operations, we then work together to see how we can put a stop to it. It requires global cooperation.

Mr Dennis Tan.

I am not sure I heard the Minister accurately, so I just want to ask for good order. When an application is before the SFO, will the office do a first round of anti-money laundering search that is usually required by all financial institutions, law firms or accounting firms, when a client approaches with a new business? And if not, could I request that the Government consider requiring the SFO to do so because, after all, it is the first gatekeeper in any of this relationship with a new family office?

Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Tan for his clarification. Sir, we did put up a consultation paper entitled "Proposed Framework for Single Family Offices", whereby MAS will take a look, and we made some proposals, on how we can subject the SFOs to a licensing class exemption framework, which would require them to notify MAS of their presence and to comply with specific requirements, such as the SFO and its fund vehicle maintaining a Singapore bank account, thereby subjecting all SFOs to anti-money laundering controls. So, this is something which we will be sharing more details on the date of implementation and also, to look at what are the changes to the legislation that we will need.

The point that Mr Tan mentioned earlier about doing the checks, we do that. And we do that at two levels, so the banks will, on their own, do some of these checks with the clients before they allow them to open accounts, and that is part of their due diligence checks. And for MAS, we will do another check if they are applying for tax exemption. So, that is on top of what the banks will check.

I am going to move on to the next question. But before I do so, I would just like to inform Mr Tiong that I am quite disappointed by the exchange just now. I note that you have withdrawn your earlier comment, but I would like to remind you and all Members of the House, of Standing Order 50(4). Let me read what it says: "It shall be out of order to use offensive and insulting language about Members of Parliament".

I consider what you had said just now to be quite insulting and it is beneath the dignity of this House to use such language.

So, I remind all Members again; the Member has withdrawn that comment, which is obviously correct. I would have expected an apology, but I accept that you just withdrew that comment —

[Inaudible.]

Mr Tiong, hang on, hang on. I will let you have your say.

I did want to remind everyone – front bench, back bench. We are all here for a purpose; we want to maintain dignity and decorum in this House, and the use of such language about a fellow Member of Parliament is not par for the course. Mr Tiong.

I would like to apologise to the Minister for the comment.

Kindly stand up when you speak.

I would like to apologise to the Minister for my comment on his question.

Minister Chee.

Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Tiong for his apology. I accept it and I hope that we can, in future, have such discussions in a civilised and polite manner, a respectful manner. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Tiong. Thank you, Minister Chee.

3 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the review of the February 2020 fatal child abuse case had established if the child had verbally disclosed or attempted to communicate the abuse during her interactions with relevant agencies; and (b) what specific lessons were learned regarding training of social workers and preschool educators to detect and respond effectively to verbal or non-verbal cues from young children.

4 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development given the review panel’s findings of the February 2020 fatal child abuse case, whether the Ministry considers the proposed measures sufficient or will stronger reforms such as independent oversight, real-time case-tracking, and statutory reporting duties be implemented to close systemic gaps especially in cases of suspected child abuse and domestic violence.

5 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the threshold that the Child Protective Service (CPS) use to remove a child from the family; and (b) how does the framework deal with pushback and questions on why CPS is seen to intervene too early.

6 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what will be the Government’s response to the recommendations by the review panel looking into the February 2020 fatal child abuse case.

7 Ms Diana Pang Li Yen asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the Ministry's threshold for determining that a child should be removed from their family; and (b) how does the Ministry balance the need for better protection of children with potential pushback from parents who may question the Ministry's intervention as being too easily triggered.

8 Mr Victor Lye asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry will consider introducing a mandatory child safety reporting framework to impose a legal duty on designated relevant persons who become aware of a child at risk to report such cases to the authorities.

9 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Social and Family Development following the review panel’s recommendations on strengthening Singapore’s child protection ecosystem (a) how will the Ministry and partner agencies update Parliament and the public once these recommendations are implemented; and (b) what metrics will be used to assess whether such measures have led to sustained improvements and proven effective over time.

10 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) for each year over the past 10 years, how many calls regarding vulnerable child have the Child Protective Service receive; and (b) whether the Ministry would embark on a systematic review of these calls to ensure that they were recorded and logged as required.

11 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Minister for Social and Family Development regarding the February 2020 fatal child abuse case (a) whether the Ministry can share details of the emotional support being provided to the Child Protective Service officer presently under disciplinary inquiry for lapses in the case; and (b) whether the Ministry is also providing support to other individuals involved in the case to cope with the emotional burden of the case.

12 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry will consider publishing clearer guidelines or case examples on when involuntary child removal from parental care is warranted; and (b) whether a training and post-referral support framework is in place to support persons who make such referrals to the Ministry, even when no abuse is found.

13 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether protective or anonymised reporting mechanisms will be introduced to allow for reporting of suspected child abuse concerns safely; and (b) how the Ministry will monitor and mitigate unintended effects of increased reporting such as heavier workloads.

14 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) why the Ministry did not convene a review panel on the February 2020 fatal child abuse case in the intervening years before its statement on 8 April 2025 despite early indications that Child Protective Service was consulted; and (b) whether the Ministry will convene a review panel and publish its findings for any death in the child protection ecosystem in future.

15 Mr Jackson Lam asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry will introduce mandatory internal audits to flag unlogged or unreturned child protection hotline calls in real time; and (b) how often such data gaps have been detected in the past five years.

16 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in respect of the report on the February 2020 fatal child abuse case (a) when was the deceased child’s father first informed of her situation; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider requiring the parents of an affected child to be informed by relevant agencies and involve both parents in any safety plan regardless of their marital status.

17 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry will consider establishing a central coordinating office similar to the Municipal Services Office to serve as an overall coordinating agency for child abuse cases which involve multiple Government agencies; and (b) if not, what are the reasons against it.

18 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how the Ministry intends to enforce the Child Protection Ecosystem Review Panel's recommendation that child protection case management agencies should manage all child abuse cases and be adequately resourced to do their jobs effectively; (b) what will constitute adequate resourcing; and (c) how the Ministry will track systemic improvements such as through reduced caseloads per worker and faster inter-agency response times.

19 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in view of the recent review of the child protection ecosystem, whether the Ministry will outline a plan for implementing a centralised, risk flagging digital system for at-risk children to provide authorised professional with a holistic view of a child's situation and ensuring that no crucial detail is missed between agencies.

20 Ms Cassandra Lee asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in light of the February 2020 fatal child abuse case, whether the Ministry will develop and facilitate community programmes for neighbours, volunteers, and grandparents to encourage community-based vigilance in recognising early signs of distress in families.

21 Mr Gabriel Lam asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what criteria guide the Ministry officers in determining when a child should be removed from family care due to suspected abuse; and (b) whether the Ministry will review these criteria, risk matrix, and workflows to ensure timely intervention.

22 Mr Gabriel Lam asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what steps will the Ministry take to improve the child abuse reporting process in light of the recommendations by the Review Panel to strengthen the child protection ecosystem; and (b) whether such improvements will include safeguards to prevent psychological harm to families wrongly suspected of abuse.

23 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what are the current criteria for removing a child into protective care or placing them under mandatory supervision; (b) whether the threshold for intervention will be reviewed in light of the February 2020 fatal child incident; and (c) how does the Ministry balance the need for earlier intervention with potential parental pushback.

24 Mr Alex Yeo asked the Minister for Social and Family Development given the Review Panel's findings and recommendations of the February 2020 fatal child abuse incident, whether the Ministry plans to strengthen and align inter-agency coordination, communication and risk assessment criteria between the agencies in the child protection ecosystem, such as Child Protection Services (CPS), SPF, Social Services Agencies and Schools in their management of child abuse reports and cases.

25 Mr Victor Lye asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what safeguards are in place to ensure that reported lost and missing child cases are prioritised until physical verification of the child's safety; and (b) how will coordination with relevant social agencies and interested parties be improved to ensure that such cases are actively investigated.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am answering in my capacity as Minister-in-charge of Social Services Integration. May I have your permission to answer Question Nos 3 to 25 in today's Order Paper together?

Yes, you may.

Sir, my reply will also cover related questions filed by Members for subsequent Sittings. Members who had filed those questions may wish to withdraw their questions after this session. Thereafter, Minister of State for Home Affairs Goh Pei Ming will, with your permission, Sir, address Questions Nos 26 and 27 in today's Order Paper.

Alright. So, for all Members who have filed questions, we will take supplementary questions after Minister of State Goh Pei Ming has addressed Question Nos 26 and 27.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, this House would be familiar with the tragic case of Megan Khung. She died in February 2020, after months of abuse by her mother and her mother’s boyfriend. All the agencies concerned – the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) Child Protective Service, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA), the Singapore Police Force (SPF), Beyond Social Services and HEART@Fei Yue Child Protection Specialist Centre – accept the Panel’s findings in full.

There were opportunities to pick up on the abuse, which might have prevented Megan’s death. Our responses clearly fell short.

As Minister Masagos and I had said on 23 October, MSF is the lead for the national child protection ecosystem. On behalf of all the agencies and organisations concerned, we are deeply sorry for the outcome and for the lapses at the Child Protective Service and SPF, as well as the missed opportunities at ECDA. We should have done much better.

Mr Speaker, our social workers confront the pain of child abuse cases every day. Their emotional burden of separating parents and children, and managing cases resulting in tragic outcomes is a heavy one, which they have chosen to bear. To our social workers, thank you for your commitment to protecting vulnerable children. Let us carry this burden together, as a sector and as a society.

Before I answer Members’ questions, I would like to set out how the child protection system works, and I might add, it is quite similar for vulnerable adults as well.

For child protection, it rests on the foundational principle that parents are primarily responsible for their children. And in most families, parents do their best for their children. We do not and should not intervene unnecessarily. Families encountering the child protection system often find the experience stressful. They may be questioned by teachers, healthcare professionals, social workers and the Police, which can feel intrusive and accusatory, especially if eventually no abuse is found.

Social workers aim for a collaborative relationship with the families they work with. They support parents to care for their children, intervening only when the child is at risk. When there are reasonable grounds to believe that a child is in need of care and protection, the law empowers child protection officers to step in, to implement safety plans or even remove the child from the home and from the family.

Protecting children requires society’s collective effort. We depend on neighbours, friends and relatives to offer help to parents facing caregiver stress, and to report suspected abuse by calling the National Anti-Violence and Sexual Harassment Helpline (NAVH). Alongside them, preschools, schools, hospitals, healthcare institutions and social service agencies also play critical roles in identifying abuse.

Over the years, MSF and our partners have worked to strengthen the child protection ecosystem. Megan’s death five years ago had already prompted further enhancements to protocols. The system has evolved since then. But there is still much more that can be done.

My response to Members’ questions will be in three parts: first, enhancing frontline capability; second, strengthening systems and oversight; and third, responding to the Review Panel’s recommendations.

Mr Speaker, let me start with frontline capability. We will enhance frontline capability and empower professionals who are our first line of defence. In particular, we will continue to manage practitioner workload and ensure social workers are adequately resourced. The risk of burnout is real, and it is difficult to attract and retain people in child protection work.

Over the past three years, the average caseload ratio for the sector has been fairly stable at around 18 to 21 cases per worker, but the variation across centres is significant, ranging from 12 to 30 cases per worker. For the Child Protective Service, now known as PSV or Protective Service, we have doubled our child protection officers from around 45 in 2019 to more than 90 in 2040, and we are continuing to expand. [Please refer to ​clarification made under "Measures for Prompt Police Case Resolution and Mandating Assignment of Police Officers with Child Protection Training in Child-related Cases", Official Report, 5 November 2025, Vol 96, Issue 10, Oral Answers to Questions section.]

The additional resources have helped bring down the average caseload per officer, down from around 40 to 35 today. We have also redesigned the job to reduce the workload on our protection officers. Support staff were brought in, and services were outsourced to handle ancillary tasks and augment resourcing for critical work. This enables our protection officers to focus on social investigations as well as supervision. We will continue to step up training and competency development to give our practitioners the skill and the confidence to detect child abuse and make sound decisions that keep children safe.

Some Members raised concerns about early and accurate identification of child abuse and the liability issues that may arise when making a report. There are already laws mandating reporting of child abuse. For example, ECDA's regulations require preschools to report suspected child abuse and failure to do so is an offence. Section 424 of the Criminal Procedure Code also mandates the reporting of certain serious offences, such as grievous hurt and sexual offences, and this includes offences against children. If professionals and members of the public report child abuse in good faith, the Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA) protects them from civil or criminal liability.

That said, professionals may find themselves in a difficult position to report abuse, not only for legal reasons but for fear of having the families cut them off, resulting in them not having sight of the vulnerable person. They may also be concerned about undermining the trust that they have painstakingly built-up with the families that has enabled them to keep the child safe.

MSF will, therefore, look into how we can better foster a safe environment for professionals to report suspected child abuse cases. To better identify child abuse, we are also studying analytic tools to help us connect the dots and see trends across agencies. This allows us to target our efforts on higher-risk cases. But having said that, we have to carefully validate these tools to avoid excessive false positives, which could overwhelm the system, and to avoid reinforcing stereotypes.

Some Members asked us about intervention thresholds and highlighted the need for balanced decision making.

Determining when and how to intervene requires difficult judgement calls, balancing child safety with preservation of the family. Members' questions reflect a range of views. Some Members advocate for earlier intervention or child removal; while others caution against overreach, which may cause distress to otherwise reasonably well-functioning families.

The approach to child protection occurs on a continuum. When concerns arise, the community can offer informal support: the neighbour can check in; family members can ask if help is needed, lend a listening ear, and so on. But as concerns escalate, the child protection system progressively steps in. From social workers educating parents on child management strategies and caregiver stress responses, to state intervention in serious cases of child abuse.

Generally, the existing thresholds are appropriate. However, we will make clear that while we respect the role of parents in disciplining their children, excessive physical discipline will be considered and reported as abuse.

I would also like to address a concern about reporting thresholds. Members can be assured that the role of those making a report is simply to flag concerns. It is the job of our social workers to support parents who may be struggling with caregiving; and the job of the Police and Child Protection Specialist to ascertain if abuse has occurred.

The second set of issues raised by Members touch on how we will strengthen our systems and our oversight. One area is to regularly audit agencies managing child abuse cases, including the Protective Service, so as to ensure accountability and transparency and to foster continuous improvement. The Protective Service has been working with child protection case management agencies to surface cases where they assess that the risk level exceeds what the agencies were designed to handle.

We have also started to contact other social service agencies and organisations that are not child protection case management agencies to surface all suspected child abuse cases. This will be done progressively and expeditiously.

Today, the Protective Service conducts periodic practice reviews with external consultants to assess whether officers have made accurate case assessments and complied with protocols. We intend to further strengthen our quality assurance framework by increasing the frequency of practice reviews and expanding the audit scope. MSF will implement the enhanced measures by 2026.

Several Members suggested having more centralised coordination and data integration. Indeed, MSF will be setting up a new social service coordination centre supported by technology. It will help us better detect, sense make and connect the dots for cases from different touch points, such as the social services, education, preschool, community and other sectors.

We are also working to improve protocols and coordination with the Police for missing children, something mentioned by Mr Victor Lye. Today, child protection case management agencies have to lodge a police report within 24 hours and concurrently alert Protective Service. The Protective Service also reports cases to the Police within 24 hours. When a case of suspected child abuse is reported to the Police, the Police will assess the case based on the facts and circumstances.

For cases assessed as higher risk, for example, involving serious physical harm or sexual abuse, the Police will immediately intervene to ensure the child's safety. The Protective Service will keep a close watch on missing children reports made to the Police by case agencies and work closely with the Police. When the Police come across a case of suspected child abuse, besides conducting Police investigations, they will also inform MSF for safety planning and social intervention. The new social service coordination centre, which I mentioned earlier, will also provide tighter links to Police operations.

Finally, let me address questions from Members on the Government's response to the Panel's recommendations.

MSF fully accepts the Panel's recommendations. They focus on three broad areas: first, improving the clarity of roles within the child protection ecosystem; second, fostering a stronger learning culture; and third, providing more structured support for social service practitioners.

We will consult and work closely with the social sector to implement the recommendations progressively and complete the implementation by end 2026.

Sir, some of our responses to the Panel's recommendations have already been set out earlier in my reply. For example, the establishment of the social service coordination centre; the use of analytic tools and technology to track cases and connect the dots; and working with agencies which are not child protection case management agencies to surface cases to child protection management agencies, so that we can handle them.

I will briefly set out our responses to the other recommendations for completeness and since Members have asked.

In Recommendation 2, the Panel proposed establishing an appeals mechanism to address cases where agencies have differing views on risk levels and case management. This has to be done quite quickly. So, MSF will set up a Triage Assessment Panel by the first quarter of 2026 to do this and to determine which agency is best placed to manage the case, and then move.

In Recommendation 3, the Panel proposed that MSF should review ECDA's role in triaging potential intra-familial child protection cases. We agree. By early next year, preschools will report such cases directly to the NAVH.

In Recommendation 4, the Panel recommended that we correct the wrong perception that only family members can make a Police report of a missing child and to create a safe culture of reporting. Since 2020, MSF has put in place formal protocols for cases where a child is unsighted or missing. There is now a common understanding within the sector that anyone can make a Police report of a missing child. But we will continue raising public awareness and understanding of this issue, such as through the Break the Silence campaign.

In Recommendation 5, the Panel proposed that lessons learnt from critical incidents should be routinely shared with community agencies. In the past, MSF would carry out bilateral reviews of incidents with the relevant social service agencies. In future, all deaths of children known to social services will be independently reviewed with lessons shared across the sector. We will consult with the sector on how best to do this.

On the final recommendation about providing more structured support for social service practitioners, I would like to assure Members that MSF is taking steps to bolster the morale of our protection officers and the social services sector. As recommended by the Panel, employers can do more to create a safe and supportive work environment for protection practitioners. To enable this, MSF will set up a Protection Practitioners Care Fund to implement capability building and well-being initiatives for protection practitioners. Further details will be announced next year.

Sir, let me conclude. MSF will continue to engage and work closely with stakeholders to strengthen our internal systems and communication across agencies. We must carefully calibrate our efforts even as we do more. Protocols and structured tools are important, but they should guide and not replace critical thinking, judgement and relationship building. We must never reduce child protection work or vulnerable protection work to a mere check box system. Instead, we need to build trust and relationships over and on top existing systems and procedures – between parents, the community, social services and the Government.

As individuals and as a society, let us look out for those who may be struggling: parents and caregivers who need support in parenting and child caregiving, turn to our community and social service agencies for help and guidance.

Each time a tragedy like Megan's occurs, we feel anger, sorrow and regret. Whether we are members of society or social work professionals, we must work together and do our utmost to protect our children. Let us rededicate ourselves to protecting every child and vulnerable person, never forgetting those whom we have lost.

26 Mr Jackson Lam asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether police risk-assessment tools will be recalibrated to prioritise cases involving children who are missing from contact for extended periods; (b) whether an automatic supervisory review will be triggered after defined time lapses for such cases; and (c) how technology, such as inter-agency databases or alerts, will support faster child location efforts by the police.

27 Mr Gabriel Lam asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs on the February 2020 fatal child abuse case (a) why did the Investigation Officer classify the missing child report as low-risk; (b) what steps will the Ministry take to review the risk classification guidelines and follow-up requirements for Investigation Officers’ use especially for cases of missing vulnerable persons; and (c) how will supervision of Investigation Officers be strengthened.

Mr Speaker, may I seek your permission to answer Question Nos 26 and 27 filed by Mr Jackson Lam and Mr Gabriel Lam on today's Order Paper?

Please go ahead.

My reply will also cover questions for written answer filed by Ms Valerie Lee and Ms Diana Pang for today's Sitting.

Megan Khung's case was a tragedy. Minister Desmond has earlier set out the Government’s views on it.

In 2020, after Megan's death was uncovered, the Police reviewed their handling of the case. There were two rounds of police reports filed. The first report was made in January 2020 by Megan’s grandmother. Further police reports were made in July 2020, by Megan's grandmother and father.

The Investigation Officer (IO) who dealt with the first Police report, and her supervisor, failed to follow Police's procedures to escalate the case to the regular case review sessions for monitoring and guidance. The IO had assessed this as a case of child discipline with low safety concerns based on the information that she was presented with at that time.

Following the report, the IO attempted to contact Megan's mother over the next two weeks, but could not reach her. She did not follow up beyond that because she was then deployed for COVID-19 related duties. Despite this, the case would normally have been followed up if the IO and her supervisor had escalated the case to the regular case review sessions in the first place.

The subsequent Police reports concerning Megan were referred to the regular case review sessions, and this eventually led to the discovery of Megan's death and the arrests of the perpetrators. Police commenced internal investigations once the case came to light in 2020, and disciplined both the IO and her supervisor. The IO resigned subsequently. The Review Panel has corroborated these findings.

For missing person reports, the Police have established procedures to guide the follow-up. Specifically, the Police accord priority to missing vulnerable persons as they may be at higher risk, regardless of the duration they have been missing and this includes young children. Cases of missing vulnerable persons are escalated to the regular case review sessions with supervisors for monitoring and guidance. It is standard procedure for the Police to work with other Government agencies to locate missing persons, including sharing the data of the missing persons. Where necessary, the Police may also issue appeals for information to seek the public's assistance.

The Police do not track the duration taken to close a case. There are many factors that can affect the length of an investigation. This includes the wide range of offences with varying complexities, as well as the need to work with different partners as part of the investigation process. There are internal controls in place to ensure that cases are followed up promptly. These include a daily case review process for supervisors to provide guidance on the cases, and multiple levels of supervision and regular checks throughout the investigation. But the Police have also continued to strengthen these processes and systems.

In particular, the Police have made several enhancements. In 2022, they introduced the Family Violence Training Package for all frontline and IOs to adopt a sensitive approach to family violence cases, including child abuse cases, and to recognise and escalate and work high-risk cases together with the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF).

In 2023, the Police formed Family Violence Teams (FVTs) at all Land Divisions to give focus to family violence cases, including child abuse cases. Specialised training is provided to FVT officers to equip them with the knowledge and skillsets to handle these cases, such as how to engage the victims sensitively, as well as how to work closely and more integrated with other agencies.

In particular, when Police come across a case of suspected child abuse, or when MSF receives an urgent report on high-risk cases through their National Anti-Violence and Sexual Harassment Helpline (NAVH), the Police will work with MSF Protective Service for safety planning and social intervention for the family and child. This may include the activation of MSF's Domestic Violence Emergency Response Team (DVERT), a round-the-clock service launched in 2023 to provide immediate help to high-risk domestic violence cases with immediate safety concerns. DVERT officers would respond on-site to conduct a professional assessment and make urgent arrangements for the victims to be relocated or placed in alternative care for their safety, if necessary. DVERT officers are also empowered under the Women's Charter to issue Emergency Orders (EOs) at the scene and to provide immediate safety for the victim.

To strengthen IOs' efficiency and supervisory capabilities, the Police have also harnessed technology for the review of cases. They have implemented technological solutions to trigger automatic notifications to IOs and their supervisors to complete time-sensitive tasks promptly. Our frontline Police Officers bear a heavy responsibility to protect lives. They take this responsibility seriously and perform their duties with commitment and professionalism.

The demands on our Police Officers continue to increase. They often have to make difficult judgement calls every day in the course of their duties. When under pressure, mistakes can happen. In this case, the lapse arose because two officers, who were under pressure, did not follow the established operating procedure. It was a serious breach, and it resulted in a tragic outcome. The Police will learn from this, and reinforce procedures and training for its officers.

Leader.

REVISION OF QUESTION TIME

(Suspension of Standing Orders)

Mr Speaker, Question Nos 3 to 27 cover an important topic, but I notice there is less than 25 minutes left to the end of Question Time. As it is an important topic, I am going to move to extend Question Time so that the issue can be properly addressed and supplementary questions can be raised.

Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that Question Time at this day's Sitting be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 22(1) so as to enable the Questions for Oral Answer to continue until the completion of Question No 27, including relevant supplementary questions thereon.

I give my consent. Does the Leader have the general assent of hon Members present to so move?

[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]

Leader, please proceed.

[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Speaker, and the general assent of Members present, (proc text)]

[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Resolved, that notwithstanding Standing Order No 22(1), Question Time at this day's Sitting continue until the completion of Question No 27, including relevant supplementary questions thereon. – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]

MEASURES FOR PROMPT POLICE CASE RESOLUTION AND MANDATING ASSIGNMENT OF POLICE OFFICERS WITH CHILD PROTECTION TRAINING IN CHILD-RELATED CASES

(Resumption for supplementary questions)

Mr Xie Yao Quan.

Thank you, Sir. Sir, I thank the Minister and Minister of State for their heartfelt and comprehensive replies. I welcome, in particular, the groundbreaking step that all child losses, in future, will be independently reviewed. Yet, we must also do so in a way that sensitively protects the officers directly involved in each child loss case, because they bear the emotional brunt of these cases.

And so I think the only way we can do so is if we have, first, in the child protection ecosystem, a culture of collective ownership, and this must go beyond taking collective responsibility when things go bad. It must mean a culture of ever more equal partnership when things are not bad, so that when things do go bad, we have the capacity to first, band together, grief together, cope together and support each other first.

So, beyond system enhancements, my question is how does the Ministry plan to build up and strengthen this culture of collective ownership in our child protective ecosystem?

Sir, my second supplementary question is on Megan's case and the independent review into Megan's case. The decision was taken after MSF's first statement on the case on 8 April 2025, so may I seek the Minister's clarifications on the timeline and how the decision to independently review Megan's case was made only after 8 April 2025?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his important questions, but before I proceed, may I just make a correction to what I said earlier.

I mentioned in my response that for Child Protection Service, now known as Protective Service, we have doubled our Child Protection Officers from 45 in 2019, to more than 90 in 2040, and we are continuing to expand. I meant to say 2024, not 2040.

With that correction behind us, Sir, I will address the Member's two questions.

I thank him for his sensitivity to the work that is being done by our frontline officers, both in MSF as well as in the social sector. This is prevention work. The sector is working together and working with the community and the public to prevent harm from occurring. It is a challenging and difficult and onerous responsibility which the sector bears and must bear, for the protection of children and vulnerable persons, whether spouses, persons with disability, the elderly, and so on.

And when a tragic outcome happens – whether hurt, serious hurt or a death – everyone who has or might have had an opportunity or a touchpoint feels this, not just organisationally and sectorally, but individually. And it is a question of "what ifs?"

And as I said, it is prevention work, and our officers, both frontline as well as in the community, engage a lot of people all the time. So that, for us, in handling cases like these, it is a balance between, on the one hand, transparency and accountability, which is important to maintain public trust and confidence, and confidence by the parents that children will be taken care of by the community; and on the other hand, making sure that the morale, the determination and the will of our frontliners and our social workers is not broken. Because if they are demoralised, if they feel that this work is too much to bear, then it will be even harder for us to maintain this sentinel system to protect the most vulnerable amongst us.

So, the Member is quite right in that when things go wrong – and in this case, things went wrong – we bear it as a sector, we bear it as agencies responsible, having interacted with, or having had opportunity to interact with the cases. Certainly, when officers have breached protocols, as you have heard Minister of State Goh, and as I have mentioned earlier, internal reviews and action have to be taken. But the burden is on the whole sector, as well as on the organisations concerned. So, we strike a balance between both very paramount considerations.

And we must keep building that. When I gave my response earlier, you would see graphically in your mind that child protection work involves rings of concentric circles, and they all have to work collectively together, the wider circle being members of the public, neighbours, colleagues, strangers, lending a helping hand or reporting abuse, so that the inner rings, community organisations like schools, preschools, general practitioners, clinics, can take a closer look and also report.

For an even inner ring of child protection case management agencies, including the Protective Service, to be able to intervene, offer help, protect the child through safety plans, and in the most high risk cases, intervene statutorily, with the Police, with the Courts, if necessary.

For all that to work, we need to continue to build up this culture of collective ownership, of relationships between organisations in this safety net.

As I said in my reply at the end, we certainly have protocols, standard operating procedures, and common language and screening guides. All these are important so that things do not get missed, so that people can have the benefit of experienced people who have come out with these protocols for us to follow, so that our system can get better.

But that is no substitute for the importance of a strong inter-agency collaborative relationship between one another, all wanting to work together, all knowing each other and all imbibing that common vision and mission of taking care of the most vulnerable.

So, I agree with the Member that it is work that is underway and it is a continuous work in progress, as new officers join the system.

The Member asked why there was a review in 2025. I think Minister Masagos, as well as MSF had explained previously that in 2020, internal reviews had been carried out by the organisations concerned as well as bilaterals with MSF. But in 2025, both during and after the sentencing of the perpetrators involved in Megan's death, new information had surfaced, for example, photographs as well as new information from some of the agencies concerned. And MSF decided, notwithstanding the bilaterals done earlier, to convene an independent Panel, in order to strengthen the safeguards in our system and to look into the new facts that have surfaced.

I know many Members have many questions. I will run through the list of those who have filed questions. So, just be patient. Mr Cai Yinzhou.

Speaker, I thank the Ministers for their reply. I would like to seek a few clarifications. The first is on Megan's case. The initial reporting of the case in the media kind of pinned the blame on the social service agency Beyond Social Services that was involved, and a few community and social practitioners actually spoke up on social media about the optics of the reporting. I think, retrospectively, the question is then, how can we better report or communicate when such tragedies happen, in light of also encouraging collective ownership and culture?

My second question refers to conversations with preschool educators. On one hand, one anecdote was, as much as educators want to balance building rapport with parents and they do ask when they find injuries on the children and they need to ask in a polite and non-offensive way to just clarify how injuries that might have occurred when they bring their child to the centre. So, the question is: how does the Ministry help to support preschools in balancing this rapport with parents that preschool educators have to constantly balance?

Another question by preschool educators was when a child with non-verbal or with special needs might present with injuries that parents may attribute to falls, that it is only the parents' account that is taken into consideration. What advice would we give to preschools to assess in those cases, how much of parents' accounts to believe and whether or not to make a report with NAVH, nevertheless?

A last question from preschool educators is, after the abused child returns to a centre, they may also exhibit some of this abusive or violent or inappropriate behaviour to their peers as well. How can teachers be better prepared for these scenarios?

My last supplementary question references an initiative by MSF and Koufu that was launched in August this year, where 77 food court managers were trained by MSF to be the eyes and ears of the community and highlight NAVH hotline and the work that they do. So, my question is, how do we expand such initiatives, like Minister Desmond Lee mentioned, the rings of concentric circles where a society's collective responsibility to protect the vulnerable?

I thank the Member for his observations and his questions.

The balance, as I said earlier, is between setting out the facts as to what happened and on the other hand, keeping the sector cohesive as a whole. The aim is to reflect on what happened and see how those gaps should be closed. And so, there was not and should not be an intention to point fingers.

At the same time, the public expect some accountability and laying out of the facts. That is what happened in the report of the independent Panel. And we have read the report and seen what happened. So, to the extent that there was a misunderstanding that there was finger pointing, we have apologised to the relevant agencies, including Beyond Social Services, for the misunderstanding that had occurred. It was not the intention, but if that was perceived, we have apologised as well.

For preschools, because they deal with very young children from infants to the age of six, sometimes, it is very hard to discern what is actually happening. And that is why we need two things. On the one hand, with experience, we produce protocols, guides to empower our frontliners, including preschool leaders and preschool teachers and carers, to be able to identify concerns and possible child abuse. So, as I said earlier, if they detect something of concern, they can report. It will be for the social workers to offer more targeted support and for the protection agencies to intervene and make safe for the child.