Hansard, Tuesday, 13 January 2026

1 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health what steps is the Ministry taking to raise awareness of regular strength training and resistance activity to mitigate the effects of muscle loss and to maintain functional independence among middle-aged and older Singaporeans.

2 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health what plans does the Ministry have to support safe and guided strength training for middle-aged and older Singaporeans and less active adults who may lack confidence or knowledge to use gym equipment effectively.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 1 and 2 together?

Please go ahead.

The Health Promotion Board (HPB) and Sport Singapore (SportSG) have undertaken many initiatives to raise awareness of the risk of muscle loss and encourage strength training. This includes jointly issuing the Singapore Physical Activity Guidelines, which recommend that adults engage in muscle-strengthening activities at least twice per week, conducting outreach through multiple channels, exploring organising gym orientation workshops to familiarise seniors with gym equipment and offering various structured physical training programmes in the community, such as Start2Move, a beginner-friendly programme with guided introduction to strength-building exercises in a supportive environment.

A significant development is the expansion of community nodes, such as the Active Ageing Centre (AAC) network. With this expansion, plus the Healthy 365 app, we can better reach out to seniors and engage them in strength training exercises.

Ms Mariam Jaafar, you have a supplementary question?

Let me clarify. I am asking actually not really for senior seniors, who I think are supported by the AACs. But in my house visits, I have gotten an increasing number of people in their 40s and 50s who do not really want to exercise with seniors but who are starting to feel on their holidays that they are getting tired easily and things like that. So, they want to keep functional independence.

I have three supplementary questions. One, can the Minister of State share whether the Ministry has tracked functional outcomes of those who have been involved in the programmes that she has cited for seniors and for some programmes that exist for younger seniors too, for example, ActiveSG's Combat Age-related Loss of Muscle (CALM), and whether there has been a significant benefit in their functional performance since?

My second supplementary question is for middle — did the Minister of State answer Question Nos 1 and 2, or just Question No 1?

Both.

Both. Okay. My second supplementary question is for the middle aged and older group, people in their 40s and 50s who are less active today, but want to start and lack the confidence to start with gym equipment. How does the Ministry ensure that there are programmes that are safely-guided and appropriately-paced through ActiveSG gyms and other community partners? And strength training is expanded under Healthier SG; so, how will the Ministry ensure that there are enough venues as well as enough trained instructors to provide a consistent quality and safe venues?

And I will bring in my Parliamentary Question (PQ) for written answer – which is a request, whether the Ministry will consider working with the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) to get an ActiveSG facility in the Admiralty part of Woodlands where there currently is not any; today, they have to go to Woodlands Swimming Complex which has the only ActiveSG facility in the area, or Sembawang.

Mr Speaker, on the first question as to whether we are tracking the functional outcomes, we do for some of the more structured programmes. The data though, I do not have the details with me. If the Member is interested in some of those, she could file a further PQ on that.

On the second question, relating to those who may not be as familiar with the gym equipment, I can imagine the concern and how we want to encourage people to use the gyms more. For the ActiveSG gyms, there are trainers who are onsite, who are very willing to support and encourage those who come and attend to use the equipment. We also have introductory programmes for those who may not be familiar with the gym equipment. And so, I hope these are things that will encourage some of the new users to use the gyms more often.

On the third question, I know that Ms Mariam Jaafar is asking for her constituency and I am sure many others feel the same way. For the North, attention is being given to see how we can look at the needs. I do not want to pre-empt the answer to the written PQ, but we can definitely look into this. At the moment, the Healthy 365 app is quite comprehensive. So, there are already in existence many opportunities in places. Perhaps, we could look at where the gaps are and look at how we can improve on that.

I would encourage those of your residents whom you say are not very familiar and are lethargic, and they do want to seek some guidance, the Healthy 365 app does provide a very good starting point and perhaps, that could be an initial introduction to a change in healthy living of the residents.

3 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how do the revised targets for fibre and protein productions by 2035 compare to the "30 by 30" targets in terms of total local food production volume; and (b) how will the Ministry ensure that these revised targets are adequate, sustainable and resilient to current and future challenges.

4 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what is the rationale for setting targets specifically for (i) fibre and (ii) protein production in the Ministry's new 2035 farming goals; and (b) how is Singapore's food security measured vis-à-vis local farming production.

Mr Speaker, the previous "30 by 30" strategy sought to develop local capability and capacity to produce 30% of our nutritional needs by 2030. This has evolved into the Singapore Food Story 2, which aims to bring about overall food resilience. This ensures that we have sufficient food supply in times of disruption. Local production is one of the food security pillars of the Singapore Food Story 2, complemented by three other pillars which are import diversification, stockpiling and global partnerships.

We want to work with our local farms to build up the capability and capacity to supply 20% of our local consumption of fresh leafy and fruited vegetables, beansprouts and mushrooms; and 30% of our local consumption of eggs and seafood.

The revised local production targets take into account the important role of local food production as a regenerative and assured source of fresh food, the strengths of our local farming ecosystem and their potential for growth.

We will focus on food types that are feasible to be produced at scale efficiently. This is consistently applied in our grants and land tenders.

Protein types such as meats are not part of the revised targets due to factors such as resource efficiency, land intensity and climate conditions. Alternative protein is also excluded given the nascency of the sector. What we are not intending to produce locally, such as rice and poultry, will be considered under other pillars of the Singapore Food Story 2 such as import diversification and stockpiling.

The revised targets balance ambition and pragmatism, by considering what we can produce and scale locally as well as the challenges our nascent sector faces, including higher production costs and the need for substitute demand. To achieve them, we will continue to find ways to support new and existing farms in lowering production costs, building capability, strengthening the supply resilience of inputs and enhancing demand offtake.

The Government will continue to invest efforts in building local production capability and capacity. Food security is a joint responsibility that requires the nation's collective effort. We also need strong support from local consumers and businesses which is essential for our farms to achieve scale and commercial viability.

We will provide more information on our support schemes at the coming Committee of Supply (COS).

Senior Minister of State Zaqy, I assume you are answering Question Nos 3 and 4?

Yes, Mr Speaker, I was answering Question Nos 3 and 4. Thank you.

Alright, thank you. Mr Yip Hon Weng.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I have two supplementary questions. The first concerns farms. Small farms and food producers form part of Singapore's small and medium enterprise landscape. What concrete job creation or retention targets accompany the new production goals, especially for sectors affected by high production costs and workforce shortages?

My second supplementary question pertains to consumers. Given that locally produced food often cost more than imported alternatives, how did the Ministry assess the potential price impacts on households, if the revised targets are met? What measures are in place to prevent local production from inadvertently raising food prices for Singaporean families?

I thank the Member for his questions; very important ones, especially if you are thinking of how we are supporting the local production in our farms.

Over the past few years, as the Member has highlighted, the global agri-food sector has faced headwinds. We have also faced supply chain disruptions ever since COVID-19 and we have seen how those have impacted us. Of course, Singapore also faces other challenges, such as high energy costs, labour constraints, especially since farming is not exactly one of the more favoured jobs, as the Member was alluding to. And therefore, I think in terms of how we support our farms, it has to be in sustainable ways, such as capability development, providing funding and schemes through our Agri-Food Cluster Transformation Fund. This helps our farms build up capability in new areas such as agri-tech.

So, we have seen farms such as Green Harvest, as an example, who today own several farm plots and already supply to many of our supermarkets, even wet markets as well. While they have been established over decades, they have also been able to transform. They set up a joint venture, Green Harvest, together with Team Build Construction. Today, if you compare their traditional farms, which are in Lim Chu Kang, and their new farms, I think you can see that the yields are about three times more than what they do in the traditional farms – using agri-tech, using new technologies, using new ways of doing things.

We want to help our farmers transform, because with higher yields, it also means that they can be more competitive. They can provide a different suite of offerings. And certainly, when we think about Singapore's land constraints, where only 1% of our land use is dedicated to farms and farming, I think then, we have to be really smart about how we use our farms to achieve these outputs.

Having said that, I am also going to say that I think it is also important that as we look at agri-tech, agri-food, new technology, new capabilities, it also has to overcome some of our constraints. Energy use, I think, is one area in which some of our new farms are able to overcome – they are now looking at low-energy type facilities, where they can reduce energy costs. At the same time, automation helps us reduce manpower.

I have spoken about Green Harvest that today already produces about three times the yield of traditional farms. On the extreme end, we also have Greenphyto which just, I think some Members may have read in the news, launched last week, at the cost of about $80 million investment. But not everyone can reach that. That is the extreme. What it claims to do is to get up to about almost 45 times yield of our traditional farms. If you can get to somewhere in between, then that, I think changes the game for our agri-food sector.

I want us to imagine a very different food sector in the near future where we talk about not just food resilience in terms of local farming, but also how we use our other pillars in the Singapore Food Story 2, which has evolved our food resilience narrative. I have spoken about stockpiling at the last Sitting. There is also import diversification. There are also global partnerships, which Members would have probably noticed, some of the recent agreements which have been made.

More importantly, I think it is really about overcoming our land constraints, but thinking about how we achieve our outputs and productions in a very different manner from where it is today.

Ms He Ting Ru.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have three supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. The first is, given the shift in 2030 target, to 2035, what prevents further deadline extensions if headwinds persist, particularly given the current uncertainty around the geopolitical climate as well?

The second is in relation to, especially for the food security and to help us better understand our food security situation, if Singapore's food imports were to stop completely, how many days could the country sustain itself on local production alone under these new targets?

And my third supplementary question is, given the original "30 by 30" goal was described as aspirational, could I just ask for confirmation whether these new targets are targets or aspirations?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Member for her questions. Let me take us back one step. I will start with the third question first, on "30 by 30" and where we are in the Singapore Food Story. I think the Member will recall, it was in 2019 when we embarked on the "30 by 30" vision, where we wanted to grow a local food strategy to build food supply resilience. That was how we got Singaporeans to really think about food resilience, how we build this story and how we build this narrative of relying on local produce, helping local produce grow and support us in times of difficulty or challenges, when it comes to supply disruptions.

And certainly, even then, we had some forms of the other pillars, which is stockpiling and others. Since 2019, we have gone through several rounds of challenges and disruptions, which has taught us that we have other options too. That gave us the confidence to look at different options as Singapore learned from various things. For example, if you recall COVID-19, we had border closures, we had supply disruptions, which got us to think about supply diversification – when it came to eggs, when it came to chickens. It also got us thinking about whether we need to strengthen stockpiling. And therefore, in the last Sitting, we had Parliamentary Questions (PQs) on stockpiling, and what we do with rice and what we do with chicken.

With greater options now, I am not solely reliant on local food production only. And we also have to manage risks. So, we look at risk profiling. And therefore, in the short term, I think what is required is really to think about how we develop the Singapore Food Story in a slightly different way. So, we now set ourselves new goals, which is 20% through leafy and fruited greens, as well as the proteins for 30%, which I think we are already somewhat there for the protein side. We have about 26% out of 30%. We have about 8% out of 20% for the leafy vegetables, which we think over time, we can grow. But overall, I would say this, that our yield production has certainly shown promise.

If you look at the statistics between 2019 and 2024, the productivity of farms has increased in yield by 10% for vegetables, 17% for seafood and 50% for eggs. So, that gives very good promise in terms of whether we are able to meet the 2035 target. Certainly, it is something that we are doing more than just aspirations, we are tracking quite carefully.

As I said, we are tracking the statistics, we are putting in programmes, schemes to ensure and help our farms transform to achieve those goals.

If you think about the Singapore Food Story security plan, I think we got to then reframe the thought that is more than just local production supplying 30% of our nutritional needs, to one of four pillars of food security: local production, import diversification, stockpiling and putting in global partnerships. These, put together, give us a bit more options.

Are we changing the goalpost? I think that is one question some people ask me all the time. I think maybe it is not so much thinking in terms of goalpost, but maybe perhaps I am giving you a better goalkeeper that can perhaps save the day with more options or more plays or more tool kits in this playbook. This is one way in which we can ensure food security in Singapore in terms of need.

As for the question on how many days we can survive, I think that is something that we keep for national security. I spoke about stockpiling. It is not wise for us to reveal how long we can hold out with our stockpiles. But I would like to assure the Member that this is something that we watch very closely to ensure that in times of need, in times of security, we want to attain and ensure some sort of normalcy in the short term, such that you do not feel too much of a difference, in terms of how we practise and what we eat every day. And that is where stockpiles come in.

But over time, you will need to look at other options, whether it is local food security, or by hopefully then, we are able to find options through our diversification efforts. With that, thank you very much.

I want to clear as many questions as I can during this Question Time. I still see quite a few hands. Please keep your questions short. And the same applies to the front bench answering. Ms Poh Li San.

Thank you, Speaker, and thank you to the Senior Minister of State. Well, if the 2030 goal was a moonshot, then I think it does make sense to come back to earth and find spots that will work as well. On that note, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, can you share more about our diversification strategy and which are the non-traditional countries that we have started importing more food from?

The short answer is, that is not part of this PQ, so you may want to file another PQ. Having said that, an example would be chickens. We have seen how we have coped with the supply chain disruption during COVID-19. We have gone from just Malaysia to other countries, such as Brazil. If you think about eggs, we went all the way to Ukraine. But I think you can find the whole list of diversified sources on the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) website too.

Mr Dennis Tan.

Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answers. I have filed two questions for yesterday's Sitting and the Minister said that these will be addressed today. So, one question regarding how will the SFA supports and transitions farms that have invested heavily in technology to meet the original target, but now, whose produce is less aligned with the new protein and fibre targets, and what enhanced grants or offtake schemes are available to assist?

I have not really quite heard the answer to this question. I have one supplementary question to this. Will the Government consider going beyond one-off grants for capital expenditure and offer grants to help with operating expenditure?

And one supplementary question for my fibre question, has SFA considered whether narrowing the recognised fibre crop set, increases systemic risk, such as pest or climate vulnerability, and if so, what will be the mitigation measures?

Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to answer these questions. To the Member's questions on cost and vulnerability, I think that it is something that really depends on your mode of farming. If you are dealing with traditional land farms, of course, you have got things like soil disease, you have things like pests and other things, and farm and vegetable diseases that could spread. You have that kinds of risk.

Where you have the extreme case where you have agri-tech farms in very controlled environments, I think that also provides a different sort of environment which helps to mitigate risks. We find that some of our farmers have already moved in this space. So, as I mentioned earlier on, Greenphyto is one, but you have others like Green Harvest and Yili Farms, who have also done some transformations to put their crops in greenhouses, which reduces the effects of climate. And therefore, a number of our farms that we have funded out of our schemes – so not so much invested in; let me rephrase that, we did not invest in, but we funded through our schemes – have been many of these new climate-resilient farms too, which helps in terms of yield, because you have shielded yourself from the weather, as one example. And of course, that reduces pests as well.

On other areas in which Member spoke about, including whether we will fund operating costs, I think that is always a danger down a slippery slope. Ultimately, where we want to focus on is capability building, looking at new areas in which we can support. I will give you examples. We have a hatchery centre and a broodstock centre, which helps, for example, to get higher yields for our egg stock. We also have hatcheries that improve the quality of fingerlings, so that aquaculture can be farmed and raised with higher yields and that are stronger in terms of survivability rates.

These help farms in more game-changing ways than just helping to fund the operating costs, which may continue in current modes, current forms, which are not sustainable in the long term.

But I think what we want to do, as I shared, is build new capability, new capacities and new ways of farming, which maximises yield, which helps overcomes our constraints in land and other weaknesses that we have in terms of manpower, for example, through automation.

Today, for example, we are also encouraging some of our farms, whether it is aquaculture farms or even traditional agriculture farms, to go abroad, understand from some of these trends that can be found, agriculture or agri-tech type farming that you find overseas, whether it is in China or in other parts of Europe, and other areas in Asia, to which we can learn from too, in terms of how they have been able to scale, if they have been able to bring down cost of production. These are areas in which we want to learn from.

So, we are trying to help our farms overcome our constraints here in Singapore.

Okay, last supplementary question. Mr Tiong.

Thank you, Speaker. The Senior Minister of State spoke about enhancing demand offtake. Given that our local farms face structural disadvantages against cheaper imports, has the Ministry considered any form of minimum local sourcing requirements for major retailers and food service operators, even a modest starting quota, so as to create guaranteed demand and help farms achieve commercial viability?

This could be a 1% quota for major food importers and supermarkets like NTUC Fairprice and Sheng Siong. You can call it "1 by 30", if you would like.

Speaker, I think as a principle, we go with free market principles. Ultimately, I do not think it is in the interest of consumers or the Government to fund or subsidise food products, just as we do not do it for energy costs nor petrol.

What we really want is to help our local farmers connect them through organisations such as Singapore Agro-Food Enterprises Federation Limited. We are working very hard to connect them with many of our retailers, hoteliers, restaurant caterers – and many today are already supporting our local farms.

As an example, while Greenphyto was just launched last month, a year ago, they have already started to reach out and they are already selling to about 75 retailers here in Singapore.

I spoke about Kok Fah Technology Farm, I spoke about Green Harvest, traditional farms, new farms. I think what is key is really to be competitive with the market to provide an offering that Singaporeans would consider. I know supermarkets such as Fairprice, for example, tell me they have got a whole section dedicated just for local produce.

We can encourage Singaporeans to support. I think ultimately it is also encouraging and building awareness with our consumers that local farm produce is fresher. Today, most of them are pesticide free. So, we give you slightly different offerings for a slightly different premium. But I think for things like vegetables, even bean sprouts, the reason why they have a pretty good hold on the market is because consumers also want freshness and there is a segment of market that wish for that.

We hope that with helping our businesses build new capabilities, improve yields, lower their cost of production, we hope that in the long term that helps them be more competitive in the market. I hope that our consumers will also be able to discern the advantages of supporting local and buying local.

On our part, whether it is through procurement, whether it is through encouraging retailers, hoteliers, I think we will continue to do our part to encourage them to buy local produce, so that we can support local farmers. It is in our interest, on the record, to ensure that our local farms, our local producers thrive, progress and play a big part in our Singapore Food Story 2.

5 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry has reviewed the $140,000 lifetime CPF contribution threshold for eligibility under the Silver Support Scheme; and (b) what considerations guide any adjustments in light of cost-of-living changes affecting seniors reliant on CPF payouts.

Happy New Year, Speaker. The Ministry periodically reviews the eligibility criteria for the Silver Support Scheme. In 2021, the total Central Provident Fund (CPF) contribution (TCC) threshold, which reflects the income that seniors earned during their working years, was doubled from $70,000 to $140,000. In 2025, we raised the qualifying monthly per capita household income threshold, from $1,800 to $2,300 – this is about an approximate 28% increase.

We also increased the quarterly payments by 20%. About 290,000 seniors aged 65 and above currently benefit from the scheme.

The Government also provides various forms of support to help Singaporeans, including seniors, to cope with the cost-of-living concerns. This includes the Assurance Package, and the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Voucher schemes, which were enhanced in 2025.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Sir, between 2016, when the Silver Support Scheme was implemented, and today, the CPF Full Retirement Sum (FRS) was adjusted 10 times, rising from $161,000 to $220,000, a 37% increase. If we take the Silver Support threshold of $140,000 as a share of the FRS a decade ago, the equivalent adjustment would bring this to around $191,000 today.

Keeping in mind that the FRS itself represents the Government's own assessment of a basic standard of living in retirement, the rigidity of the equivalent CPF threshold for Silver Support is somewhat puzzling to me. Would the Minister be willing to share the rationale for this seeming inconsistency between CPF FRS adjustments relative to the Silver Support threshold?

I thank the Member for his supplementary question. I do not think it is a like-for-like comparison. You need to look at the Silver Support Scheme in a holistic manner. Because we do have a number of other schemes that has come alongside the Silver Support Scheme to support our elderly. On top of that, there are also significant CPF enhancements that we are doing to support our elderly, the cost-of-living vouchers and the different packages – such as the Pioneer Generation Package to the Merdeka Generation Package to the Majulah Package. They are all aimed at different sectors of uplifting our seniors. So, in addition to the Silver Support Scheme, you need to look at it on a broader, a more comprehensive and a more holistic scale.

On top of that, we periodically review the parameters in which the Silver Support Scheme is improved and refined. As I have shared earlier on in 2021, we expanded the coverage from $70,000 TCC over a lifetime, to $140,000. This has resulted in a larger number of elderly Singaporeans becoming eligible. In 2025, just a year ago, we enhanced the quarterly payouts by some 20%. We have also expanded the household per capita income by almost 28%.

So, you need to look at it on a very comprehensive, holistic scale, before you make that comparison.

Mr Shawn Loh.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Silver Support Scheme is a lifeline for many of our seniors, especially our very senior seniors – maybe those above the age of 80. I see them every time in Jalan Besar and Whampoa. And as Assoc Prof Jamus Lim noted, the Silver Support Scheme is already 10 years old.

My question for the Minister is whether the Government could consider a more fundamental review of the Silver Support Scheme and in particular, the eligibility criteria; not the levels, but the criteria themselves.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked about the coverage of some of these criteria, like the lifetime CPF contribution. I think that we should instead review whether the lifetime CPF contribution should even be a criterion for the Silver Support Scheme, keeping in mind that there are a lot more seniors who have lived far beyond their retirement savings. Those above 80, would not remember what they contributed up to the age of 55, which is the current criteria. And the Government now has more sophisticated means testing criteria and mechanisms compared to 10 years ago, when the Silver Support Scheme was first implemented.

I thank Mr Shawn Loh for his supplementary question. Indeed, we constantly review the frameworks, the criteria, as to how we can better support all of our elderly Singaporeans. Not just all of our elderly Singaporeans, we have also gone upstream to see in their younger working years, through the entire lifespan of their working career, their entire work life journey itself, to see how at different points in time we can provide uplifts to our Singaporeans, fellow citizens. I think this is an important point because we have never, never ever let any difficult spot go unnoticed.

I think we need to look and see against the entire fiscal sustainability of what we have as a Government, how can we continue to sustain whatever measures, whatever policies, whatever incentives support schemes that we have given out to all of our Singaporeans, particularly when they are in their golden years. When we balance fiscal sustainability with fiscal prudence, we also – if I may use a medical word – we also immunise and boost some of the savings along the way through top-ups.

Over the last two to three years of the previous Government, we have introduced the Majulah Package, we have enhanced this Silver Support Scheme, we have also introduced, at various points, the GST Vouchers, Community Development Council Vouchers, cost-of-living vouchers to support and uplift our elderly Singaporeans. We believe that through a differentiated, a graduated and more targeted series of support, we can better, more adequately and more precisely reach out to each and every one of our elderly Singaporean.

Having said that, we share the same view, we share the same end objective, as Mr Shawn Loh and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, because we constantly want to look for ways to continue to uplift each and every Singaporean, way into their golden retirement years.

I am moving on. Next question, Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik.

6 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the rationale for maintaining the Silver Support (SS) Scheme's monthly income per person threshold at $1,500 for the higher tier benefit given that the Local Qualifying Salary has been set at $1,600; and (b) whether the Ministry will review the threshold for SS Scheme to ensure consistency and adequacy of support for lower-income seniors.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for the Minister. Given that Local Qualifying Salary (LQS), full-time equivalent as —

I have not answered the Parliamentary Question yet.

Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik.

Yes?

I actually wanted to go on to the next question.

Okay. Thank you.

Which is your question.

Question No 6, sorry.

I am doing this because we have a lot of questions. So, I want to confine and give priority to those who have filed questions, for the benefit of our Members.

Mr Speaker, the $1,500 threshold for the higher tier of payouts in the Silver Support Scheme refers to the monthly per capita household income (PCHI). This is not the individual's monthly income. I hope that this can be a point of clarification for the Member.

This monthly PCHI is computed as the total gross household monthly income, divided by the total number of family members living together in the same household.

Our Silver Support Scheme payouts are tiered by flat types – so, a 5-room flat, 4-room flat, 3-room flat, 2-room flat – they are tiered by the different flat types and of course, the monthly PCHI. This is to ensure that the support is targeted most at seniors who now have little or no family support and resources in their retirement.

The LQS serves a different purpose. It is to ensure that firms who wish to employ foreign workers also pay their local workers meaningfully, rather than on token salaries. It is not intended as a measure of retirement adequacy or financial need and is therefore not correlated with the Silver Support Scheme's monthly PCHI criteria.

As I have earlier on answered Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's Parliamentary Question (PQ) and also responded to the supplementary question by Mr Shawn Loh, we recently enhanced the Silver Support Scheme, just last year, in 2025, and we raised the qualifying monthly PCHI threshold from $1,800 to $2,300. This is approximately a 28% increase. This has enabled more seniors, including those with lower incomes, to qualify for Silver Support payouts.

Let me reassure everyone in this House – we will continue to review the Silver Support Scheme periodically.

Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I understand that the LQS and the Silver Support Scheme are two different schemes. But given that there is a progressive increase from $1,400 to $1,600 since July 2024 for LQS, whether the Ministry has assessed how seniors whose wages were adjusted by employers to meet the LQS, have consequently been pushed into the lower Silver Support tier. This is mostly for those elderly who are staying alone in their own household.

My second question is: how many Silver Support recipients have moved from the higher tier to a lower tier, since the LQS increase to $1,600?

I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. But I think that perhaps he did not understand the construct of the LQS and the fact that it is not related to the Silver Support Scheme payout. There will be further refinements to the LQS in the upcoming Budget, the Committee of Supply. I do not think I want to go too much into the details.

Suffice to say, let me reiterate that they are not in any way interlinked. I mean, that is not how we constructed the LQS to be. Because the LQS, as I have shared earlier on, is aimed at working and solving our companies' needs for foreign workers. We do not want the companies to hire our locals on a token salary, so that they can get the foreign worker quota. So, please remember that they are not related.

To his point about how much of the LQS has pushed the elderly seniors living alone down to below or set at that monthly PCHI threshold of $1,500, I do not have those statistics because it is not how we work that scheme out to be. I hope that addresses his point.

7 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the highest tier of Silver Support can be given to seniors above age 80 living in smaller HDB flats, considering that they would likely have outlived their life expectancy and depleted their CPF savings; and (b) whether the Government can top up the CPF LIFE accounts of low-wage seniors who continue to work to cope with living costs.

The Silver Support Scheme is a targeted support scheme which provides support to seniors aged 65 and above, who had lower incomes during their working years and now have little or no family support and resources in their retirement. Eligibility is determined by the senior's lifetime wages, housing type and the level of household support. Eligible seniors living in smaller flats with fewer financial resources will receive higher payments.

The Silver Support Scheme is part of a wider set of social support measures. These include the Workfare Income Supplement and the annual Earn and Save Bonus under the Majulah Package, which help boost the retirement savings of lower- to middle-income working seniors and can increase their Central Provident Fund (CPF) LIFE payouts. The one-off Retirement Savings Bonus and MediSave Bonus under the Majulah Package also provided an additional boost to eligible seniors' retirement and healthcare savings in their CPF accounts. In addition, the Assurance Package helps defray living expenses for Singaporean households. Seniors who need further assistance to meet their basic living needs can approach their nearest Social Service Office to apply for ComCare.

Mr Shawn Loh.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his care for our seniors and for his assurance that the Silver Support Scheme will continue to be reviewed periodically and sometimes, fundamentally.

I only have a specific question with regard to my earlier question on flat type. I cannot be the only Member of Parliament in this House who has had residents come up to me, who live in 5-room flats, to complain that their neighbours who live in 4-room flats are getting more from the Silver Support Scheme. And my question for the Minister is whether the Ministry could consider, in the future, merging some of these flat types so that residents, often neighbours who stay close to each other, can get the same higher level of Silver Support?

I thank the Member for his suggestion. In all of our future reviews, we take the feedback, not just from this House, but from our regular Meet-the-People Sessions, at dialogues, at town hall sessions, and at chit-chat sessions with all of our residents, and at different opportunities. We take that feedback and we certainly will see how to manage that feedback. We may not be able to, at a particular point in time, address each and every single one, but rest assured, we certainly will look at it over the medium to long term. Like I said earlier on, we have to balance it between fiscal prudence and fiscal sustainability. If we do something, I think, we need to ensure that we can sustain it over the long haul.

Of course, I hope for the day, through the collective efforts of all of us here, where we have done so well that we are able to upstream and ensure that every Singaporean has enough in their golden years; they can meet all of their Full Retirement Sum needs; and the Silver Support Scheme can then wither down to just a very small proportion. I think, then, we would have arrived.

I hope that gives the Member that reassurance of what we are thinking about over the long haul.

8 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what preparatory steps are required before Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) can be installed in newly developed estates such as Tengah; (b) what is the estimated timeline for AED installation in Tengah estate, and how it compares with other HDB precincts; and (c) what interim measures are in place to support emergency preparedness in new estates pending AED deployment.

Sir, prior to installing Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) in new estates, the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) would need to ensure that the relevant infrastructural and security works are completed. This includes having closed-circuit televisions (CCTVs) in the vicinity to deter AED theft.

Twenty-nine AEDs have been installed in Tengah estate to date; 11 more will be installed by February 2026. This will cover about 70% of the Housing and Development Board (HDB) blocks in Tengah where residents have already moved in. Installation will continue in 2026.

To equip residents with fire safety knowledge and life-saving skills, SCDF organises community emergency preparedness events, such as Community Resilience Days and MyNiceHome roadshows, in partnership with the People's Association and HDB. Several of these events have already been held in Tengah in recent months.

Dr Choo Pei Ling.

Thank you, Speaker. And thank you, Senior Minister of State, for the assuring responses. I have one supplementary question. Tengah is Singapore's first town built entirely anew in over 20 years. Timely access to life-saving equipment, like AEDs, is critical. May I ask, what further measures can be implemented to strengthen emergency preparedness in Tengah while awaiting full AED deployment?

Sir, in addition to the programmes that I have mentioned earlier, there is also the "My Responder Plus" programme, which is run by SCDF, which the community can partner SCDF in organising for residents. And at the same time, I also encourage the community to work very closely with their Community Emergency and Engagement Committees, because they can also partner SCDF in organising activities and programmes that help to equip residents with life-saving skills.

9 Mr David Hoe asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry regarding the acquisition of The Clementi Mall by a property firm which owns Grantral Mall@Clementi, (a) whether the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCS) has assessed the competition effects on retail tenant mix and leasing terms in the Clementi catchment; and (b) whether the Ministry will issue guidance on when such mall acquisitions shall be notified to CCS for competition review.

Mr Speaker, tenancy mix and turnover in commercial developments are the result of commercial decisions made by both property owners and tenants. These decisions are influenced by market factors, such as consumer demand preferences and prevailing economic conditions.

With regard to competition concerns arising from mergers and acquisitions, Singapore adopts a voluntary merger notification regime to balance between effective regulatory oversight and keeping compliance costs low. Merger parties are expected to self-assess whether their transaction may give rise to potential competition concerns. Merger parties may approach the Competition and Consumer Commission (CCS) for pre-notification discussions or seek guidance on whether the merger may be anti-competitive. To support businesses in this process, CCS has published detailed guidance on the circumstances under which mergers may raise competition concerns.

The parties to the acquisition of The Clementi Mall have not formally notified CCS for a merger assessment. CCS will continue to monitor market developments and is empowered to step in, if it obtains information suggesting that a merger may result in potential competition issues.

Mr David Hoe.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for her response and reassurance. At the same time, I also want to thank the Minister for his written response to my two Parliamentary Questions yesterday on The Clementi Mall. I would like to assure that, even though the three questions are relating to The Clementi Mall, they address different concerns. I have three supplementary questions.

First, when CCS assessed the effects of competition beyond pricing, does it also consider non-pricing effects, for example, diversity of offerings and consumer choice, particularly in heartland malls? Because these are places where our residents rely on for their daily needs. I raise this because in Clementi today, a single owner controls two malls within the same catchment area. And in my conversation with my Clementi residents, they shared with me their concerns: "David, over time, will The Clementi Mall also have the same resemblance of tenant mix as Grantral Mall?"

My second question is on what basis would the effects of competition warrant intervention by CCS and what forms of intervention are available to CCS, particularly in situations when transaction of sale has already been made?

Third, I understand that CCS may step in when it receives information suggesting potential competition concerns. Could the Ministry clarify what type of information this would look like? And would feedback from residents and the general public serve as such information? If so, how might they be able to convey such information to CCS?

I want to thank the Member, Mr David Hoe, for his three comprehensive supplementary questions. And I will respond this way.

I think it bears repeating, for commercial developments, the tenancy mix is primarily market driven and a result of commercial decisions that is made by mall owners, operators as well as tenants. And over time, many Members who serve on the ground, you have heartland malls and so on, and Members will realise, over time, the tenant mix in a heartland mall often reflects the consumer demand driven by the needs, driven by the preferences of the residents. Customer is king. We need to allow the market forces to be at work. And I think, generally, we will all agree that it is in the mall operators' interest to provide differentiated products and services. If the malls are within near proximity, it will be quite interesting to have the same brand shop operating in both malls, unless it is due to capacity issues.

But I also want to assure the Member that allowing market forces to be at work does not mean CCS is hands-off. At the various platforms that we have shared, CCS has various levers, we have guidelines, very detailed guidelines. With regard to this, it is the CCS Guidelines on the Substantive Assessment of Mergers. We also have measures, and obviously we have law, the competition law or the Competition Act, to maintain a healthy competitive environment. CCS will assess the degree to which competition may be affected or is affected, based on facts, based on circumstances. Certainly, not based on hearsay, uncertainty, projections and so on.

I want to assure the Member that, for example, if any transaction results in substantially less competition that compromises the consumer welfare, CCS will step in. We will step in. And since the Member asked, price obviously is an important indicator. Another example is if CCS observes the behaviour of the organisations and if we pick up signals that they are coordinating the behaviour to raise prices, to reduce quality, to reduce output, to reduce innovation, CCS will step in.

I want to assure the Member that members of the public, including his residents, can certainly provide feedback – qualitative as well as quantitative – to CCS directly. And we will follow up accordingly and seriously. I wish that the Member will now pick up a pen and note this down. Let the Member's residents know to call us via the hotline – 1800 325 8282.

And well, if the Member prefers the web-based approach, we have a very succinct FormSG, where you can just use your handphone and go to www.ccs.gov.sg. There is a module that says, "Contact Us". I check it regularly. There is a link that tells you that if you want to report any anti-competitive behaviour, it points you there.

We welcome the Member's residents to give us the feedback and I assure him that we will follow up accordingly.

10 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what is the cumulative number of applicants for the Home Caregiving Grant (HCG) to date; (b) what are the top three conditions cared for by HCG applicants; and (c) what is the number of applicants broken down by age group of (i) 30 to 39, (ii) 40 to 49, (iii) 50 to 59, (iv) 60 to 69, and (v) 70 years and above.

Mr Speaker, since the Home Caregiving Grant (HCG) was introduced in 2019, there have been over 94,000 applicants for the HCG cumulatively. Of which, 74% were aged 70 and above, 15% were aged 60 to 69, 5% were aged 50 to 59, 2% were aged 40 to 49, and 1% were aged 30 to 39, at the point of application.

The Ministry of Health does not collect information on the specific conditions of HCG applicants.

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin.

Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Minister of State for her response. In an ageing estate, such as Ang Mo Kio, the HCG is very much appreciated. And while primarily designed for seniors, my understanding is that it is also designed to recognise other forms of caregivers. And so, I have two supplementary questions.

The first, for those with autism and intellectual disabilities, can the Minister of State clarify whether the individual must also separately meet the Activity of Daily Living (ADL) criteria? If so, would the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) consider decoupling this? As the care recipients also have some level of independence and we want to encourage them to maintain these ADLs; the caregivers would greatly appreciate the support.

Secondly, while caregiving needs may present differently across physical health and mental health conditions, the intensity and impact on caregivers are equally significant. So, could I check whether the Government can extend the HCG to care recipients who are facing diagnosed mental health conditions and, if necessary, to introduce the appropriate criteria similar to ADLs for this qualification?

I thank the Member for the question and also acknowledge her interest in advocating for the caregivers of those with different needs.

I would want to explain that the HCG is actually designed to help defray caregiving costs and expenses for those with greater needs and that is why it is actually means-tested. The recipients are those who are unable to perform the ADLs.

That is how it is structured, because we see ADLs as being a key function and essential portion of our daily living.

So, HCG itself is a specific scheme for caregivers. When the Member asked the question about the caregivers of those with autism or intellectual disability, as well as those with mental health conditions, actually, if they meet the criteria of not being able to perform the ADLs, they will satisfy the requirement of HCG. And then, of course, there is the means testing.

I understand and appreciate where the Member is coming from, because there are clearly other concerns with those who are caring for individuals with special needs. There are many different other schemes that are in place to address many different concerns. In particular, with regard to those with special needs, there are existing efforts that we are looking at and reviewing, and trying to understand and appreciate better how we can support them.

So, it may not just be from the HCG. I want to assure the Member that, at the moment, yes, HCG has certain requirements. It is meant and intended to help those with the most or greater needs with regard to ADLs. I do see and appreciate the concerns she has with regard to those with other types of caregiving challenges. And we are looking at some of those to see how we can fill in the gaps.

In the meantime, if there are some specific concerns, she can raise the issues and then, we can see what are the existing infrastructure or support that is already existing that we can channel to the residents who are in need.

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin, a short supplementary question, please.

Thank you, Speaker, and I really appreciate the Minister of State's assurance. I recognise, especially for those with special needs, there may be alternative schemes, for example, through SG Enable. However, for the care recipients who are facing mental health conditions, could the Minister of State clarify what sort of testing? Because for the mental health condition and the doctor issues a total permanent disability, is there an equivalent sort of testing which can be offered to assess ADL, in order for them to qualify for this scheme? Because my understanding on the ground is that this is a little harder to do; and for mental health conditions, there is not as many schemes available.

Let me clarify, Mr Speaker. The description of what the ADLs are, is quite clear. So, if, let us say, the care recipient is not able to perform those daily activities permanently and the doctor certifies that he or she is not able to do so, then they would be eligible to apply for this. So, it is not a separate assessment.

I note the Member's concerns that it is not so clear cut. In those cases, perhaps that could be surfaced to us and we will see where we could streamline that a bit better. But there are quite clear descriptions as to what the ADLs are.

11 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Ministry has completed its review of the Australian government's move to ban social media access for individuals under the age of 16 through legislation; and (b) if so, whether the Ministry will consider introducing similar legislation.

Mr Speaker, Australia's social media minimum age regulations came into effect on 10 December 2025. The Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) is actively engaging our Australian counterparts and assessing the effectiveness of the measures in Australia.

Meanwhile, we have progressively introduced measures to better protect our children when they go online.

We have imposed age assurance requirements on designated app stores to reduce the likelihood of under-18 users accessing and downloading age-inappropriate apps of all types, beyond just social media apps. Designated app stores are expected to implement these age assurance measures by 31 March 2026.

We also plan to extend age assurance requirements to designated social media services to reduce children's exposure to age-inappropriate content on social media platforms. The age assurance measures will come on top of the existing protective measures for children under the current Code of Practice for Online Safety – Social Media Services. Consultations with designated social media services are ongoing.

We acknowledge parental concerns about the impact of social media on their children as well as the potential implementation challenges of age assurance requirements. There is no silver bullet. A child can still circumvent these measures, such as through using an adult's account to access age-inappropriate content. This is why MDDI will continue to work with partners from the people, private and public sectors, to co-create resources and programmes that are convenient and accessible for parents to help guide their children to foster healthy digital habits from young.

Mr Nair.

I thank the Minister of State for the reply. And I think the age assurance practices are probably a good first step. I would just like to clarify whether the social media platforms are then required to take steps to prevent these young users from using those platforms. Because I think there are two issues: one is harmful content, and the second is addiction to the platforms itself even if the content may not be ostensibly harmful.

So, that is why a clean block and putting the obligation on the social media platform to verify age before the users are allowed to use it, sounds like a tidy solution – and that is what they have done in Australia. It is not perfect, but it sets a clear line.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the question, and I appreciate the concern. I would like to assure the Member that we are indeed studying and trying to figure out what is the best approach for this.

How we have been looking at this issue is that, yes, indeed, it is not just a function of accessing it. There are three main things that we look at.

First is screen time, which is one key area and that leads to addiction. If you are spending too much time and you are not controlling that, that is a big issue.

The second is inappropriate content. And which is why, we then need to have certain measures to make sure that children are not exposed to this.

The third is undesirable online behaviours, such as cyber bullying and all the types of behaviours we have tried to prevent through the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Bill, for example.

So, we are categorising and looking at the multi-dimensional effect of the social media platforms.

While the legislative changes that the Member is hearing which are happening in other countries sound very attractive and seem like an obvious solution, what I think we want to ensure is a meaningful implementation that will actually make a difference in the experience of the children and the parents. So, we have been looking at it.

I would want to highlight a couple of points.

Firstly, we have observed some implementation challenges in what Australia is trying to do. There was an observation that there was a migration of children or the users to platforms that are not within the regulatory ambit. So, we have to make sure that if we do this, it is something that will be quite meaningful. We are also seeing people bypassing it. So, we need to make sure that the enforcement measures are clear cut because children can use their parents' identification, so, the structure needs to be in place there. There was also a rise in virtual private networks, which then, undermines all these. So, we want to make sure that we can address some of those concerns meaningfully.

Second, I would highlight that we are not starting from a blank slate. It is not like we do not have measures in place. There are very strong regulatory measures that are already in place. We already have the Code of Practice on Online Safety for designated social media services, which we have already put in place. We have also implemented age assurance requirements for apps and so, it means that they now have to stop the users who are below a certain age from coming in.

We have not been prescriptive with how age assurance measures are put in, because even for age assurance, you have age verification and age estimation. These are some of the things that we know we want to allow platforms to put in. We have set the targets. We are outcome-driven. We say, "You must put in place these things to ensure that children are not exposed to these things." How they actually do that is something that they have to look at in their circumstances. So, that is the second bit. There are already some structures in place to provide safeguards and ensure that it is a healthy ecosystem for children.

And the third thing is that we are doing more. We are actually looking at how we can continue to improve regulatory infrastructure to support this and we take a multi-prong approach. So, it is not just about having the legislation; it is also about building capability within the community, and which is why I mentioned about helping to build healthy digital habits and providing support for parents through resources and programmes on the ground. This is something that we will be ramping up in time.

I hope that this is something that we can work together on because there are multiple stakeholders: parents have to play a part, the regulators, the social media platforms. Indeed, we are in close contact with them to ensure that they are doing their best. So, these engagements are underway.

And we are also studying the technology. We are trying to figure out what is the best solution in these circumstances.

I hope that gives an appreciation that we are really appreciating and understanding the concerns and we are trying to figure out a robust approach that fits and would be meaningful for parents and children in Singapore.

12 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what are the major reasons for the sharp decline in the number of dengue cases reported in 2025; and (b) when will the Project Wolbachia trial be extended to all the towns in Singapore.

Sir, 4,036 dengue cases were reported in 2025, which was the lowest number since 2018. An absence of major local outbreaks locally, the global decline in dengue cases in 2025 and concerted efforts by all stakeholders and residents in Singapore to control the mosquito population, collectively contributed to the decrease. The National Environment Agency's (NEA's) holistic dengue control strategy, which combines Project Wolbachia, vector control operations and actions by all to keep premises free of mosquito breeding, continue to help keep dengue incidence low.

By March 2026, Project Wolbachia will be expanded to cover 740,000 households, up from 580,000 households in April 2025. By end-2026, Project Wolbachia will be released to cover 800,000 households or 50% of all households in Singapore, covering the majority of areas at risk of large dengue outbreaks. NEA will continue to monitor the progress of Project Wolbachia and adjust its deployment strategy.

Reducing dengue risks in our community requires the cooperation and support of residents. We seek residents' understanding that more mosquitoes may be seen during the release periods of male Wolbachia-carrying mosquitoes, but these mosquitoes are necessary to help suppress the Aedes Aegypti population and do not bite or transmit disease.

Mr Ang.

Thank you, Speaker. Can I ask a supplementary question? How effective is this Wolbachia trial? Is it the main reason for the significant drop in dengue cases last year?

If so, I would ask another supplementary question. Because at one point, Nanyang was considered a dengue red zone and quite a number of residents shared with me the agony of getting dengue fever. I have appealed to NEA to extend the Wolbachia trial to Nanyang, which is in Jurong West. And indeed, NEA has extended the trial to Jurong West, but stopped short of reaching Nanyang. So, I have also checked the NEA website just a while ago to confirm this, the extension of the trial.

Since NEA has considered the Wolbachia trial to be effective, what is the bottleneck that is preventing NEA from expanding the Wolbachia trial faster to Nanyang and the rest of Singapore? And even by the end of this year, NEA is only covering 50% of households. So, how could NEA add more resources to expand the trial of Wolbachia faster and better?

I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. He had a couple, so I will answer the first one on whether Project Wolbachia was the main reason for the decline in dengue cases in 2025. As I shared, Project Wolbachia is part of NEA's comprehensive strategy to suppress mosquito population and manage dengue risk. It has demonstrated good performance, as the Member has highlighted, reducing the risks of dengue transmission by more than 70% in release areas. So, that is a pretty good result.

However, I would also like to say that it is not a silver bullet for suppressing the mosquito population and managing dengue risk. Sustained vigilance and collective responsibility by the community is important to prevent mosquito breeding and remains critical to reduce the risk of dengue transmission. Globally, in 2025, we also saw a decrease in dengue cases from 14.4 million for the year before, to five million; and locally, as I said just now, there is absence of local clusters as well.

All of this, collectively, including the combined impact of NEA's comprehensive strategy, rather than that as a single intervention, has helped to lower the number of dengue cases. In short, it is one of the reasons, but it is not the only reason why we are seeing a decline last year.

On the other question, I thank the Member for raising the request on behalf of his residents. In terms of site selection, site selection on areas to receive the Wolbachia Aedes mosquito release is based on multiple considerations, including historical dengue situations and the current Aedes Aegypti mosquito population. So, there are many factors in play and it is on a relative basis across different locations in Singapore. NEA will announce the new sites in due course, so we take note of the Member's request.

The other question was around what are the constraints? Resources are finite and so the pace of expansion is also influenced by how quickly mosquito populations can be suppressed, which depends on the local mosquito situation and prevalence of mosquito breeding habitats.

So, it is a matter of figuring out how effective our current site releases have been. This is a dynamic situation. And then, on a forward-looking basis, figuring out which sites, then, have a higher incidence and also, the local population of these mosquitoes, for us to decide when the sites will be expanded into.

So, in due course, we will be announcing where the new sites will be as we lead up to further expansions towards the end of the year.

13 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Education in view of the smartphone ban in secondary schools from 2026 (a) how will schools address parents' concerns about the need for emergency communication with their children; and (b) how will the Ministry ensure that teachers are not burdened with the additional workload to check and enforce the new rules that may compromise classroom teaching time.

Mr Speaker, my response will address Ms Poh's question and related oral Parliamentary Questions (PQs) set for subsequent Sittings.

To support secondary schools in implementing the tightened guidelines for use of smartphones and smartwatches, the Ministry of Education (MOE) had engaged school leaders and provided resources such as implementation guidelines, answers to Frequently Asked Questions, and we have also shared good practices by schools that have seen positive outcomes.

On enforcement, MOE provides schools with guidelines to formulate their discipline policies and school rules based on their student profile and student needs. Secondary schools already have existing school rules and discipline policies to manage students' smartphone use during lesson time. So, these continue to be applicable with the implementation of the tightened guidelines.

Schools also have protocols for emergency communication with parents. Should parents have an urgent message to relay to their children, they can contact the school's general office. Students who need to contact their parents may also do so using phones in the general office. There is no need for students to own or use a handphone.

Ms Poh.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you Minister of State for the reply. I just like to know one week into school opening so far, what has been the feedback on the ground. Do the teachers feel or face any challenges and also, would this ban extend further to handheld gaming devices that are similar to smartphones in that sense – that is, they are taking up a lot of time and screen time for students?

I thank Member for the supplementary question. I think there is a variety of feedback and experiences on the ground. By and large, parents are supportive of the ban. Schools are in the process of implementing the new measures. Some continue to have questions about how it ought to be done and how it ought to be implemented. And MOE continues to engage the schools and the school leaders on how best to do it. I think we are also mindful that the ban should improve the overall experience of both teachers and students in the school. If there are further feedback and questions from school leaders or teachers, we remain open to engaging them on this.

14 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) how the Government reviews and enhances the Sports Excellence awards to ensure that they sufficiently support elite athletes' training, welfare and long-term development; and (b) whether adjustments are needed to better enable Singapore athletes to achieve sustained success and international recognition in world sports.

15 Mr Alex Yam asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether the Ministry will engage the Singapore National Olympic Council to review the Major Games Award Programme (MAP) to consider recognising SEA Games Silver and Bronze medallists to motivate and retain emerging athletes; and (b) whether the Ministry can support alternative non-monetary or tiered forms of recognition beyond the MAP, taking into account the SEA Games' biennial nature and competitive standards.

20 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what is the breakdown of funding allocated to national athletes competing in the SEA Games 2025 across different sports; and (b) how does this compare to funding levels over the past five years.

Mr Speaker, my response will address Question Nos 14, 15 and 20 raised by Ms Valerie Lee, Mr Alex Yam and Ms Elysa Chen in today's Order Paper together.

Our Team Singapore athletes have done well, as seen in the last few editions of the Olympics, Paralympics, Asian Games, Asian Para Games, and most recently, at the Southeast Asian Games (SEA Games) in Thailand. We are all very proud of them.

The Government invests in a few areas to build up a strong High Performance Sport (HPS) system to nurture all our athletes to achieve their fullest sporting potential.