Hansard, Wednesday, 14 January 2026

1 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for National Development (a) in 2025, how many cases did HDB receive regarding condensation and mould on walls or ceilings arising from neighbours’ continuous air conditioning use; and (b) whether HDB will consider requiring flat owners to undertake wall or ceiling enhancements as part of preventive maintenance obligations.

In 2025, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) received a total of about 240 cases of feedback regarding condensation and mould on walls or ceilings arising from neighbours' use of air-conditioners.

Upon receiving such feedback, HDB will conduct inspections to determine the cause of the condensation and mould, and provide appropriate advice to the flat owners and neighbours, including how they are using their air-conditioners. We also recommend flat owners to keep rooms well-ventilated to minimise mould growth and consider the use of mould-resistant paint as a preventive measure.

Ms Tan.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for her reply. The reason I am asking this is because I have seen an increasing trend of appeals with regard to these kinds of issues, especially mould caused by continuous use of air-conditioning by neighbours. The challenge for residents is that they cannot do anything because it is coming from the neighbour's unit. I would like to ask if HDB will consider mandating wall or ceiling enhancements for people, if they are going to be continuously using the air-conditioning. If not, then what measures could be taken to ensure accountability or cost-sharing or timely resolution of condensation disputes between neighbours?

My second question would be whether guidelines would be introduced to clarify responsibilities of affected flat owners? Because the damages are quite serious – entire walls or ceilings. The mould has also led to some health issues for many of my residents.

I thank the Member for the questions that she raised. HDB can consider providing an advisory to the neighbours on proper usage of air-conditioners, for instance, when it comes to the length of air-conditioning use or temperature settings. As to her suggestion on wall and ceiling enhancements, HDB has to explore if these enhancements will truly work. And as for whether or not we could stipulate them, I think we will have to take a look the specific circumstances, the specific cases. Where there are egregious uses where it has led to damage in the corresponding neighbour's flat, then based on the case specifics, we will have to see how the compensation can be best shared by the two individuals.

2 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in light of recent news of an Indonesian trafficking ring transferring babies to Singapore (a) how many approved adoptions are being reviewed further; (b) how is the Ministry ensuring that affected families can obtain clarity and resolution expeditiously; and (c) whether the Ministry is considering providing interim assistance to these families, particularly where the adoptees have not obtained Singapore Citizenship.

Investigations by the Indonesian authorities into the alleged trafficking of Indonesian babies are underway. The Singapore Government is currently working closely with our Indonesian counterparts to review these allegations. The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) is unable to comment on the number of cases currently under review at this stage.

Child trafficking is a serious matter as it exploits children’s vulnerabilities, violates their rights and separates them from their biological families for personal gain or criminal purposes. It also affects the children’s long-term well-being and development.

MSF has been engaging affected families to provide more information on processes and to address their concerns as information becomes available. We are also working closely with the relevant authorities to ensure that cases are reviewed expeditiously, while safeguarding the welfare and best interests of the children involved.

MSF takes these matters seriously and will continue to work with relevant authorities to ensure appropriate safeguards, transparency and support for affected families.

Ms Lim.

Thank you, Speaker. I have three supplementary questions for the Minister of State. He mentioned that the investigations by the Indonesians are underway, and I think our Government is cooperating with them, something along those lines. Is he able to give any indication of the timeline as to how long this will take? I have constituents affected by this situation and they have already been caring for these babies for more than a year and this uncertainty is a torture to them. So, would the authorities in Singapore be able to give any indication of how long this is going to take – months or years. This is really quite devastating.

The second question is, there is an issue of, perhaps, public confidence in the adoption process. These parents in Singapore are innocent parties that have done every step in accordance with the law. And I think the MSF officers and their partners have also looked into each adoption case before recommending to the Court whether the case could be supported and, on that basis, the adoption orders were given. So, my question is, was there any possibility that the MSF officers or its partners could have discovered any suspicious circumstances before the orders were made?

And the third question actually concerns expenses in child raising. In the case which I know of, the adoption order has been given but the child's application for citizenship is on hold now because of this investigation. Because of this, the parents will have to incur childcare expenses and so on, based on the foreign nationality of the child. Given this unique situation, where the parents are innocent, really, can the agencies give a special exception to allow these expenses of these affected families to be incurred on a Singapore child basis, to take into account the fact that they have applied for citizenship and it is on hold because of something outside of their control. I would like to ask the Minister of State these questions.

I thank the Member for the questions. Let me take the three questions, one by one.

MSF empathises with the parents and we understand that the uncertainty may cause a little bit of anxiety for the affected families. Investigations are still underway and we are trying our very best to work closely because this involves not just within Singapore, but also with the Indonesian authorities. Therefore, we are trying to proceed as expeditiously as possible and to give the families resolution. We are unable to comment on a timeline at this juncture.

In terms of public confidence in the process and especially in terms of whether there are certain things that we are looking into the process or the agencies involved, I think adoptive parents are informed of the process and they proceed with adoption under the framework that has been put out. There are certain processes in place to ensure that agencies abide by certain procedures to ensure the babies are of the correct origin, appropriate sources. But at the same time, agencies which parents approach for such child-matching services, many of them – in fact, all of them – operate on a commercial basis. Therefore, the onus is on adoptive parents to try their best and ensure that children are identified, matched and placed in accordance with the prevailing laws of both Singapore as well as the child's origin country.

For the third question in terms of process, I would just like to explain that we recognise that navigating both the adoption process as well as the citizenship process can be a long process, especially because we understand that the parents would have already made commitment, enduring commitment and it is also an emotional commitment to the child.

I would just like to explain that we keep the adoption process and the citizenship process separate because they are governed by different legal frameworks and policy considerations. Adoption establishes the legal parent-to-child nexus and it is assessed primarily based on the child's welfare and suitability of the adoptive parents. Whereas the citizenship process, on the other hand, establishes the immigration considerations and evaluates based on that.

Without adoption, there will be no legal nexus for the Singapore parent and the foreign child; whereas an adoption is necessary to formally establish that relationship in the eyes of the law before we can proceed with establishing the legal status of the child and applying for citizenship for the child. Not all adoption applications will get approved for citizenship.

All prospective adoptive parents are also informed of this process during the social investigation procedure, MSF will inform them of that – that the adoption and the citizenship processes are actually delinked processes and the granting of citizenship is not automatic following the adoption order. We also inform them that the citizenship process can take up to 12 months. This is to ensure that the families proceed with a clear understanding of the processes and the potential outcomes.

Having said so, MSF recognises the emotional stress and especially the financial strain, like what the Member has highlighted. If the adoptive parents do need financial assistance, they may approach MSF and we will assess every case based on the circumstances.

Ms Lim.

Thank you, Sir. Perhaps, one more supplementary question. I am not sure whether I heard the Minister of State correctly. When I asked about whether the agencies could have uncovered the suspicious circumstances earlier, he mentioned something to the effect that the parents engaged the adoption agencies on a commercial basis. So, is he saying that there is nothing more that the agencies can do to try to prevent this kind of thing from happening again? I mean, the parents, really, what can they do?

Allow me to clarify. I mentioned that the agencies operate on a commercial basis. However, we do have guidelines telling the agencies what they can and cannot do, and what is due diligence on their part. If we do uncover that agencies are aware that the children they are bringing in are of unknown and suspicious origin and despite so, bring them in, they will be taken to task. We will take the necessary actions against those agencies. We expect the agencies to do due diligence and to bring in children of correct background and origin, having done all the due checks prior to bringing them in.

Having said so, there may still be cases whereby something may have been done in the country of origin, with the agencies in Singapore not knowing of what that background may be. I do not think we should comment further specific to this case. It is under investigation. We should let the investigation run its course, before I comment further.

3 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) in relation to construction noise near residential estates, how is compliance with noise thresholds enforced and how frequently is it monitored; (b) how are prolonged duration and cumulative exposure to such noise factored into enforcement measures; and (c) whether noise thresholds will be reviewed, including the use of psycho-acoustic factors such as sharpness and roughness of sound.

Mr Speaker, Sir, construction sites within 150 metres of residential premises are required to install noise meters which the National Environment Agency (NEA) monitors. NEA takes strict enforcement action against contractors who exceed the permissible noise levels, with more severe enforcement action typically taken for repeated offences as well as those with a longer duration of time above the permissible noise level.

NEA will continue to review the regulations including the permissible noise levels to ensure that they remain relevant and effective in protecting public health.

Dr Chen.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his response. Residents in Tampines living near the long-running Loyang Viaduct construction have reported prolonged stress from construction noise. So, given that sounds of similar decibel levels can differ in perceived loudness and distress, does the Ministry consider the use of psycho-acoustic factors, such as sharpness and roughness, in the review of thresholds?

And another supplementary question would be what are the penalties when construction sites exceed noise thresholds?

Sir, I thank Dr Charlene Chen for her questions. When it comes to psycho-acoustic factors, we take reference from the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines, which currently do not include psycho-acoustic factors, but this is a part of the science that is under review. We will continue to review our stance as well as take reference from the WHO with respect to what are the factors of sound that we take into account when enforcing the framework.

Dr Chen also asked about the penalties. There are different ways in which we do this. The requirement for monitoring itself is a burden placed on the site operator, potentially requiring closed circuit television (CCTV), continuous real time monitoring. But if they transgress, then we will take further action against them. And if they fail to comply with the regulations, they will be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $40,000. In cases of continuing offences, further fines not exceeding $1,000 a day, or part thereof, during which the offence continues after conviction. Thereafter, there are composition sums, depending on the circumstances of the case and the court findings.

Ms Gho Sze Kee.

Similar to the hon Member, Dr Chen, I also receive feedback from residents of RiverEdge, a condominium that is situated in Tanjong Rhu. The lived experience on the ground appears to differ materially from what average equivalent continuous sound level (LEq) measurements suggest, with the Tanjong Rhu Build-To-Order construction site located less than 150 metres of existing residential block, residents have informed me that these repeated short bursts of intense construction noise that are technically compliant when averaged over five minutes – but nonetheless, they are quite disruptive.

So, I have two questions for the Senior Minister of State. In such close proximity situations, how does NEA assess whether the current averaging based approach adequately reflects the actual disturbance experienced by the residents? And will the Ministry consider using Lmax instead in assessing compliance and addressing residents' complaints?

Sir, I thank Ms Gho for her questions. Indeed, we will consider and review how to best provide the correct supervision, regulatory framework and enforcement. We need to have a balance between the protection of the public health and allowing necessary work to proceed.

And indeed, we do have an averaging of five minutes, but we also have some of the framework where it is averaging over 12 hours.

So, there is a balance that we need to strike for different types of sound: persistent recurrent, repeated sharp bursts, as Ms Gho has pointed out. The current framework requires an average sound level over five minutes and she has asked us about Lmax, which means, not taking into account the time span for a person to be exposed to that sound, but the absolute level for the sound exposure. It is indeed something that we can study and we will study together with taking reference from the WHO guidelines that I explained earlier, which is the basis on which we have developed our framework. And this is also something that is under study internationally.

4 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for National Development whether the Animal and Veterinary Service (AVS) will consider (i) mandatory CCTV recordings in areas where pets are handled or housed in pet grooming facilities and (ii) requiring licensed operators to retain such footages for investigation purposes, to support accountability and transparency.

5 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for National Development (a) what measures are being taken to strengthen enforcement against pet businesses, including pet grooming facilities, that fail to comply with the Animals and Birds Act (ABA) and Code of Animal Welfare; and (b) whether under the review of the ABA, serious negligence by pet businesses causing animal harm or death may result in enhanced penalties or longer licence suspensions.

Sir, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 4 and 5 on today's Order Paper together, please?

Yes. Please proceed.

Mr Speaker, all individuals working in animal-related businesses, including pet groomers, are entrusted with the care of their clients' animals and are expected to uphold high standards of animal welfare. Hence, these individuals face higher maximum penalties under the Animals and Birds Act (ABA) for animal cruelty and welfare offences compared to other members of the public. Failure to meet minimum standards stipulated under the Code of Animal Welfare may be used as evidence for enforcement action. Upon conviction for an animal welfare offence, the Court may also issue a disqualification order to an individual to disqualify them from owning an animal or running an animal-related business for up to 12 months.

The National Parks Board (NParks) has investigated 54 cases of feedback alleging harm to pets caused by groomers over the past three years. We are reviewing the regulatory regime for pet sector activities, including pet grooming businesses, under the ongoing review of the ABA. We will consider whether to include requirements for closed circuit television (CCTV) recordings when we amend the legislation. We are also reviewing the appropriate penalties for animal welfare and cruelty offences, including those that apply to animal-related businesses.

Ms Jessica Tan.

I thank the Minister of State for the reply and for the reassurances. I do have a few supplementary questions for both my Parliamentary Questions (PQs). For my first PQ, I would like to ask, are the current standards for supervision of pets during grooming sessions, particularly when they are secured in holding areas or cages, whether the Animal and Veterinary Service (AVS) would review the protocols for this to prevent prolonged unsupervised confinement that may result in distress or worse, injury or fatality?

And the other supplementary questions for this PQ are: what are the current processes and response time for handling complaints of suspected negligence in pet businesses? And how can AVS improve public reporting channels and investigation process to ensure timely follow-up?

The whole point is really, how to, first of all, report and also, how can pet owners be more aware of businesses that have had complaints and may not have followed protocols. But more importantly, are there going to be tighter protocols, for when they are in confined areas or unsupervised?

For my second PQ, I would also like to ask, apart from penalties – because that is after the fact and when once pet is injured, or I think the distress I have had for my residents and many pet owners who have shared that it can be extremely distressing and so, rather than penalties, which are good deterrents, but really prevention – so, will AVS consider introducing mandatory certification or competency requirements for pet groomers? And more importantly, skills training to ensure proper animal handling, not so much the grooming, but the animal handling and safety protocols, and more importantly emergency response when the pets are injured.

Will the Ministry also review the licensing conditioning for pet grooming businesses to incorporate minimum supervision requirements and emergency preparedness protocols?

That is a lot more than two supplementary questions. Minister of State Alvin Tan.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clearly, it is a very important topic. First of all, as I mentioned to the Member, we are reviewing the ABA and we are getting feedback from Members, as well as members of the public. We are reviewing under the review of the ABA, the regulatory regime for pet sector activities and this includes pet grooming businesses and the other areas in which the Member has highlighted.

With regard to the Code for Animal Welfare, which I mentioned earlier on, this is for specific to the pet industry. This Code of Animal Welfare specifies minimum standards and best practices for pet businesses and pet groomers. All pet groomers are encouraged to comply with these sets of standards and best practices, and that includes not leaving animals unattended in rooms, unsupervised, as the Member had mentioned.

But where there are breaches to this code, they can be used to support prosecution under the ABA and where unnecessary pain or suffering has been found to be inflicted on the animal, that is section 42 of the ABA, or failure of duty of care is found, section 41 of the ABA, NParks then can take an appropriate enforcement action under ABA. [Please refer to ​"Clarification by Minister of State for National Development", Official Report, 14 January 2026, Vol 96, Issue 14, Correction By Written Statement section.]

So, we are looking at all of these reviews under the review of the ABA. Currently, there are already levers for NParks to take action and we will take all of the feedback into regard.

If members of the public or the Member herself comes across any reports, please feel free to contact AVS. I have gotten the number here – it is 1800 4761 600. And AVS will be prompt and swift.

6 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether the LTA should consider regulating owners of large rental car fleets, given the impact on private-hire drivers' livelihoods if these car rental companies were to undergo financial distress or insolvency; and (b) how will the LTA work with tripartite partners, including the National Private Hire Vehicles Association, for an orderly transition and to safeguard drivers’ livelihoods in such circumstances.

We are deeply sympathetic towards the plight of drivers who are affected by the Autobahn business failure. We recognise the impact large car rental companies have on drivers' livelihoods when such companies become financially distressed or insolvent.

That is why, when the Autobahn situation happened, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) worked swiftly with the National Taxi Association (NTA), the National Private Hire Vehicles Association (NPHVA) and the point-to-point (P2P) operators to help affected drivers secure other vehicles and earning opportunities. If drivers wish to seek civil recourse, the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) also has a legal clinic to provide legal advice to members, including on contractual issues.

Availing of such support does not require car fleet owners to be regulated. Regulation can result in increased compliance burden and ownership cost for private hire vehicles which could likely be passed through to drivers and passengers.

Ms Yeo Wan Ling.

Thank you, Speaker. With the growing number of private hire drivers renting their vehicles from third party rental companies, many are actually subjected to non-standardised and often onerous rental contract terms. This includes, for instance, high excesses for vehicle damage and unclear clauses governing termination, as in the Autobahn case, penalties or the withdrawal of driver benefits.

What more can the Ministry or the LTA do, working with NTUC, the NPHVA and the NTA to equip our drivers to better understand and compare rental agreements, so that they can make informed decisions and avoid unfair contractual terms.

The other one too, is whether or not, such contract literacy and consumer protection guidance can actually be incorporated into the curriculum for our vocational licences.

I thank the Member for raising the questions. LTA will work with the associations to increase drivers' awareness of their rental contract terms so that they are more aware of their contractual rights and obligations.

On her second point, LTA will set up a workgroup to review the vocational licence curriculum and this review of the curriculum will include the recent Platform Workers Act and its relevant protections. We are also open to including in the curriculum, education on contractual matters.

Mr Ng Chee Meng.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I declare my role in NTUC as the Secretary-General. In this case, Senior Minister of State, NTUC's affiliated platform workers associations – NTA and NPHVA – stepped in almost immediately together with the tripartite partners to assist the drivers and provided a timely support, especially in arranging new cars to continue with their livelihood.

But even then, I know that even many of the drivers are concerned about losing their deposits, ranging from $500 to $1,000. This is not a small sum to many of my brothers on the ground. Would there be some measures to ensure that owners of large rental fleets, to get them to ring-fence some of the funds, so that in the event of insolvency, these deposits for drivers can be safeguarded?

I thank the Member for his question and also his suggestion. With regard to ring-fencing, it is quite close to what the earlier Member had shared. It is along the same lines as to whether or not there can be regulations, whether or not the car dealer industry should be regulated. I had shared in my earlier reply that this can lead to increased compliance burden, which can eventually find its way into becoming higher cost for drivers as well as passengers.

That said, I recognise the difficulties that the current set of drivers who are impacted by the Autobahn situation face. The matter is now before the High Court, but because these drivers are unsecured creditors, it is likely that they will face difficulties getting their deposits back.

And that is why, I think moving forward, we need to work closely with the associations to see how to better equip our drivers about what they understand about their rental contracts.

And where these drivers who are currently impacted face financial difficulties, I think we can work together to see and together with community help, see how we can best help these drivers.

I would also like to add that I think most importantly, which is what LTA has done together with NPHVA and NTA, is to quickly secure new earning opportunities for the drivers, which is what has been done together as a tripartite group to quickly work with GrabRentals, CDG Rent-A-Car, to make sure that the affected drivers are able to secure new vehicles at good contractual terms, so they can quickly get back onto the roads and to continue earning an income.

Last supplementary question. Mr Patrick Tay.

Can I just suggest to the Senior Minister of State that perhaps, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) short-term financial assistance for those workers that are in need, may possibly be extended to this group as well, since the company is being liquidated or some scheme arrangements being carried out? For consideration.

Thank you for the suggestion. Let me consult with my MOM colleagues.

7 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Minister for Manpower what are the considerations to implement the CPF Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme, accepted by the Government in 2016, given that a typical investment portfolio of 65% equities and 35% bonds has earned 9.5% returns per annum over the past five years, and delaying the scheme's implementation may deprive CPF members an option to take risks to earn higher expected returns.

Mr Speaker, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) is in the final stages of studying how we can provide further support to Central Provident Fund (CPF) members to plan for their retirement through products that would strike the right balance between risk and return. We will provide updates when ready.

In the meantime, members who wish to invest their CPF savings for potentially higher returns can already do so through a number of low-cost funds under the CPF Investment Scheme.

Mr Loh.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is often said that time in market is more important than timing the market for investments. And so, I am glad to hear the Minister's update that the Ministry is in the final stages of implementing the Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme. For too long have Singaporeans been deprived of the simplified investment choices that the scheme had envisaged.

My question to the Minister is this: given the passage of time, would the Ministry also consider investing resources to educate the broad base of CPF members that can eventually benefit from this scheme? Can we invest a lot more resources to increase the level of financial literacy for the broad base of CPF members whose many CPF savings are still stuck in Ordinary Account, savings that are not used for housing and education, and can be better applied to earn a higher investment return on an expected basis?

I thank the Member for his supplementary question. The straight answer is, of course, we will do that. When we have finalised the details of the provision of further support, in terms of planning their retirement through products, striking this optimal balance between risk and return, we will contemporaneously roll out publicity initiatives to educate the broad masses of our CPF members, hoping that they will benefit from it.

I wanted to also address the hon Member's point about timing the market and the time in the market. I fully agree with him. But I think we also have to be very mindful of the fact that whatever plan, whatever investment products that we eventually do end up working with the multiple big providers in the market to provide, we have to carefully study the impact of these proposed adjustments to our CPF system. For us, the penultimate objective has always been to safeguard retirement adequacy.

So, the different features, the parameters that strike this optimal balance between risk and return are quite essential for us.

If you look at the last few years, we have experienced significant market turbulence, significant investment headwinds. When we launch a particular product, any investor who had to liquidate his or her investment for retirement needs during a market downturn would have experienced, depending on how long he has been invested for, a significant drop in his asset value and that can impact adversely his retirement adequacy.

Of course, if you look back with the benefit of hindsight, it is always good to be able to time the market properly. But I think, in reality, looking forward is a more difficult endeavour.

But like I said, we are in the final stages. I do beg for the indulgence of the Member that once it is ready, we will be ready to announce the range of products.

Mr Louis Chua.

Thank you, Speaker, and thank you for the update, Minister, on this. It might have saved me one cut for this year's Committee of Supply.

In terms of the launch of the Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme, I just wanted to ask if this is something which is still part of the consideration set, in terms of this final review of the various options that Minister talked about. After all, it was back in 2016 when the Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme was being accepted by the Government, and while we may be considering a various range of options when it comes to investing one's CPF, whether the Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme still features in it and whether we can still expect an update by this year.

I thank the Member for his supplementary question. I have shared earlier on that we are close to finalising the details. We will announce it at the appropriate time. We have taken guidance from the CPF Advisory Panel and we are in the process of studying how we can incorporate some of the features, because, obviously, a certain time has passed and the markets have also evolved.

As I have said earlier on, I beg for the indulgence and the patience of every Member in the House. When we are ready, we will announce it.

Last supplementary question. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Thank you, Speaker, for your indulgence. A quick follow-up on this. Minister, I do not want to entirely pre-empt what you will eventually announce, but I wonder if in considering the distribution of equities and bonds for the Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme, whether the CPF Board will also consider the possibility of one that is fully directed toward the local market as an additional means of providing liquidity to our beleaguered Singapore Exchange (SGX).

I thank the Member for his suggestion. The construct of the product will take into account different weightages on global equities versus bonds. It will also be a glide path, depending on when the member would enter into the particular product that we are looking at.

These are some of the considerations. Like I said, we are not ready to announce it yet because we are finalising the product.

As to which markets and so on, depending on how we work with — when the hon Member talks about the local market being beleaguered, actually, over the last couple of months, I think the SGX returns has been quite impressive. So, I may not necessarily agree with him on that point.

8 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Acting Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs how Singapore builds on its established working relationship with the Saudi authorities in managing Haj arrangements, including addressing considerations around (i) quota allocation, (ii) queue arrangements and (iii) health requirements for senior pilgrims.

Mr Speaker, Singapore enjoys a strong working relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Hajj and Umrah. We have a quota of 900 places for Haj pilgrims from Singapore and have requested for more Haj places. Most recently, I conveyed this request to the Minister of Hajj and Umrah, Dr Taufiq bin Fawzan Al-Rabiah, during my visit to Saudi Arabia in November 2025.

The Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) administers our Haj quota through the MyHajSG portal queue system. Places are allocated on a first come, first served basis for fairness and transparency. An exception is made for senior Haj pilgrims, aged 70 years and above, who are given priority consideration.

From 2026, Saudi Arabia will introduce new requirements for Haj pilgrims to produce a valid medical health certificate. MUIS and the Ministry of Health have worked with local healthcare providers to help our pilgrims fulfil these requirements.

Ms Yeo Wan Ling.

I had constituents meet with me to ask more about the support that can be given to them for their Haj trips and especially those of their senior parents, particularly in the safety and health aspects when they are at Haj. I hope that the Minister could provide us with some examples of how MUIS, as well as the Ministry, is assisting them on this and supporting them through this.

And I am also heartened that there are workings right now to ask for a higher quota. But could I ask: is there anymore that we can do to improve our chances of obtaining a higher quota for Haj?

Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions, and I thank her for her concern in this area. It is an important area for the Muslim community here in Singapore.

If you look at how the system works today, Saudi Arabia sets the Haj quota for various countries based on a standardised formula, that is 0.1% of each country's Muslim population. So, Singapore was allocated 900 places for Haj 2026.

Having said that, over the years, if you look back and up to today, Singapore has proactively engaged Saudi Arabia to request for additional Haj quota. While I had conveyed this request, as shared in my answer, during my recent meeting with the Saudi Arabia's Minister of Hajj and Umrah, other Singapore leaders have also raised the same request during their meetings with the Saudi Arabia counterparts. So, I assure the Member we will continue to do so.

At the same time, MUIS works closely with the Saudi Arabia Ministry of Hajj and Umrah in demonstrating excellent Haj management and also compliance with regulation. So, this I believe will put us in good stead to request for larger Haj quota.

So, I would like to urge everyone here, as well as whoever can contribute in this, let us continue to work together to help our Muslim community fulfil their aspirations to perform the Haj.

9 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Support for Job Redesign programme is deployed to incentivise flexible work arrangements that mirror platform autonomy to attract platform workers back to traditional employment; and (b) if so, what results have been achieved through this programme.

Mr Speaker, the Support for Job Redesign programme aims to help employers redesign jobs to drive business objectives, including accommodating Flexible Work Arrangements (FWAs), improve workforce effectiveness and help businesses tap on a broader pool of workers. The programme is not targeted at bringing platform workers back to traditional employment, as platform workers operate under different work arrangements from employees on FWAs.

Workforce Singapore (WSG) does not track the number of platform workers who transition to traditional employment through the programme.

Mr Gerald Giam.

Sir, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his reply. Given the impact on the long-term career progression on workers who remain in platform work longer than intended, will the Ministry consider such a target to track the number of platform workers who transition back into full-time traditional employment every year, so as to better track the success of relevant initiatives and programmes to achieve that?

And secondly, given that platform work is often perceived to offer better pay and time flexibility than equivalent traditional jobs for workers of the same education levels, how is the Ministry of Manpower working with employers to make workplaces more attractive on these two aspects to incentivise platform workers to make the transition? And what measurable results have been achieved to date?

I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. Platform workers may choose to do platform work for various reasons. For example, greater flexibility or control over when and how their work is being done. In fact, for those who wish to transit out of platform work, the Government does provide much resources to help them plan their careers and strengthen their employability, such as the Employment and Employability Institute's career matching services. There are also other schemes, such as the Career Conversion Programmes as well as the Mid-career Pathway Programme, SkillsFuture Transition Programmes, to improve their employability.

10 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment what are the (i) benefits for Singaporeans and (ii) opportunities for Singapore businesses as part of the Strategic Food Partnership with New Zealand.

The Strategic Food Partnership (SFP) with New Zealand, which was launched in October 2025, aims to strengthen food cooperation between Singapore and New Zealand in areas such as agri-food trade and supply chains, regulations and standards, biosecurity, and research and innovation. This complements the Agreement on Trade in Essential Supplies, which Singapore has concluded substantive negotiations with New Zealand. Under the agreement, both sides can continue to receive essential supplies, including food items, during supply chain disruptions.

One initiative we are exploring under the SFP is to expand the existing regionalisation arrangement for Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza to include other significant animal diseases, such as African Swine Fever and Foot and Mouth Disease. This would minimise trade disruptions during animal disease outbreaks and can help to maintain consistent food supplies from unaffected regions in New Zealand.

We will also look at ways to facilitate greater food trade. These could include facilitating exchanges between both countries' public and private sector stakeholders, such as food and logistics industry players, to identify pain points, and explore solutions and commercialisation and investment opportunities.

Ms Nadia Samdin.

Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Minister and her Ministry for working so hard at food resilience. Singaporeans love food and we import more than 90%, so this is real important work. I have two supplementary questions.

The first is really on global partnerships as the new pillar. Could the Minister elaborate a little bit more about how certain regions, which we are exploring these partnerships with, the strategy behind identifying these regional priorities? And secondly, could the Minister also describe a little bit more about what sort of collaborations are being pursued as part of the partnerships, be it trade in essential supplies, as mentioned with New Zealand, or also co-investments or technology collaboration, long-term offtake agreements, and so forth?

With regard to the second supplementary question, I think there are many potential areas where we can work with the New Zealand businesses as well as regulators.

As I mentioned, one example we are looking at is how we can better our regulatory framework so as to reduce the chances of disruption in the areas in case of disease outbreak. There are other areas – whether it is in research and innovation, whether it is in investments cooperation, we will do our very best on both sides to facilitate so that we can benefit from more regular exchanges and also trade-facilitated visits between the two countries.

As to the first question on global partnership, it is an important pillar of our Singapore Food Story 2. I think it fully deserves a better presentation and discussion. So, I would encourage the Member to either file a separate Parliamentary Question or to participate fully when we discuss the Singapore Food Story 2 during the Committee of Supply debate.

The following question stood in the name of Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim –

11 To ask the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what is the average take-up rate of caregiving respite services; (b) whether there are sufficient services being offered to meet the demand from caregivers seeking help to cope with burnout; and (c) what plans does the Ministry have to enhance the quality of and expand these services to meet the varying needs of seniors, disabled individuals and those with special needs.

Question No 11.

Sir, respite care services tap on the capacity of existing care services for seniors, persons with disabilities (PwDs) and children with developmental needs. Providers are generally able to meet the demand for respite care, with the Agency for Integrated Care and SG Enable working with providers to prioritise clients with urgent care needs, including cases with caregivers seeking help to cope with burnout.

In 2025, caregivers of over 14,600 seniors and over 3,600 PwDs and children with developmental needs utilised subsidised respite care services.

We will continue to review our respite services to ensure they meet the needs of clients and their caregivers. For instance, we will enhance the Home Personal Care service later this year to offer longer service hours and after-hours care, including for respite care. The Take-a-Break home-based respite programme for PwDs and children with developmental needs is also currently being reviewed.

12 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Coordinating Minister for Public Services and Minister for Defence (a) whether the Ministry has conducted a strategic review of the decision to relocate Paya Lebar Air Base in light of recent global conflicts demonstrating the vulnerability of concentrated air assets to mass drone attacks and long-range munitions; and (b) whether such consolidation of the RSAF’s assets into fewer air bases significantly increases operational risks during a first-strike scenario.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as a small island with no strategic depth and hinterland to absorb an attack, the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) needs to develop operational concepts and solutions that are uniquely suited to our security needs, while taking into consideration the competing needs for Singapore's limited land and finite human resources.

Broadly speaking, our circumstances require us to have a robust intelligence and effective threat detection and early warning systems at range, so that the SAF can mount timely and decisive responses with a suite of diversified capabilities across multiple layers and distances where necessary.

Even then, we may not be able to prevent all threats from reaching our shores. For this reason, our critical infrastructures and facilities are hardened against potential attacks, and our key assets can be dispersed in peace time and especially during contingencies. We have also factored in reserve capacities to ensure resilience for scenarios where some of our assets may be destroyed or damaged.

The decision to relocate Paya Lebar Air Base to free up land for national development purposes was a carefully considered one, taking into account the factors I have just mentioned, as well as then-emerging and now-evolving threats.

There are certainly trade-offs involved. We have undertaken a series of additional measures to manage the risks and challenges. For example, in terms of available airbases and runways, we have invested significant resources in expanding Tengah Air Base and Changi Air Base, and lengthening the contingency runway at Pulau Sudong. Tengah Air Base and Changi Air Base are also being upgraded with better detection, response and resilience capabilities, including against the emerging threats posed by drones. Enhancements are also being made in other parts of the SAF.

The SAF will continually assess our operational, infrastructure and capability requirements, taking into consideration the threats on the horizon and available technologies, while carefully weighing the costs and risks to Singapore. For good reason which Members will appreciate, many of our efforts are conducted out of the public eye and not disclosed. We will make public announcements at appropriate junctures should there be good operational and deterrence reasons to do so.

Mr Tiong.

Thank you, Speaker. Eleven days ago, the United States (US) conducted "Operation Absolute Resolve" in Venezuela. In two-and-a-half hours, the US forces struck four air bases with Kamikaze drones, destroyed Venezuela's Russian-supplied Buk-M2E air defences and eliminated aircraft on the ground.

By 2030, I believe these sorts of capabilities will become more widely distributed. So, what is the Ministry's assessment of our post-2030 posture's survivability against this type of strike? And does the Ministry believe that there are concentration risks to be mitigated?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will make two points in response to the Member's comment.

First, I have said that based on our geography, the risk of any strike on Singapore is always very high because we lack hinterland or depth – which is why our operational concepts are quite unique for our own operational needs. And I think I will not need to go into details on how we execute our operational concepts.

My second comment is in response to, not just Mr Kenneth Tiong's, but I sense many other Members' interest in the latest evolving technologies on the battlefield. Much has been said about drone warfare. It is not something new. It is something that we have been looking at for many years, even since I was an active member of the SAF.

Maybe to illustrate this point, I will just share a little vignette which Members may be aware of. In 2017's National Day Parade (NDP) – I wonder whether Members will remember the 2017 NDP – many people were impressed by the SAF's dynamic display. The most memorable scene from the 2017 National Day Display was the final act towards the end of the parade and ceremony, where we had our fireworks. Members may recall there was a display put up where we had 300 drones in the sky performing and forming a heart shape.

To many, this was a wonderful conclusion to a very nice NDP. To the informed observers who are in this line of business, we already knew what that meant for the nature of warfare.

13 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance what additional subsidies or financial support such as property tax rebates, maintenance grants, utility rebates can be considered specifically for senior households living in HDB flats on fixed or no incomes, so as to prevent overburdening of long-time HDB owners who may struggle with costs but wish to remain in their flats.

Mr Speaker, the Government actively supports seniors in Housing and Development Board (HDB) households who wish to age in place, with more support for those with lesser means.

Seniors can unlock the value of their flat and receive a regular stream of income through the Lease Buyback Scheme. The Government provides a cash bonus of up to $30,000 for eligible Lease Buyback Scheme participants, on top of the proceeds from selling a portion of their flat's remaining lease. To improve seniors' mobility and safety within their flat, in-home senior-friendly fittings and accessibility solutions, such as grab bars and ramps, are also subsidised via the Enhancement for Active Seniors programme.

The Government also provides direct support for living costs through the permanent Goods and Services Tax Voucher scheme, which comprising cash, MediSave, U-Save rebates and rebates for Service and Conservancy Charges. Seniors who earned low income during their working years and thus have low retirement savings may also receive quarterly Silver Support payments in cash. This was recently enhanced in 2025, with eligible seniors receiving up to $1,080 each quarter, up from $900 previously.

The Government has also from time to time provided additional support, such as Assurance Package payments, as well as property tax rebates. Beyond subsidies and financial support, we are also strengthening community support for seniors. For instance, the Silver Generation Office reaches out to all Singaporeans aged 60 and above to inform them about and connect them to care and support services. We are also piloting Age Well Neighbourhoods, which bring senior-friendly infrastructure and services into existing estates so that seniors have better access to such services in familiar surroundings.

Mr Fadli Fawzi.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. Mr Speaker, the Senior Minister of State has mentioned that one housing monetisation option – the Lease Buyback Scheme – has been available since 2009, but yet, only about 12,700 households have taken it up, as of June 2024, which is a relatively low take-up rate.

Does the Ministry interpret this as seniors not needing assistance or as seniors rejecting monetisation as a form of assistance? And if it is the latter, would the Ministry consider finding ways to encourage the take-up rate, or maybe implementing further policies to reduce the cost of living for seniors, so they can continue staying in their own homes on top of encouraging them to extract value from their homes?

Mr Speaker, we do recognise that, first of all, inflation in the past year has come down, but nonetheless, cost of living concerns remain high on the agenda for many Singaporeans, including the group of Singaporeans that the hon Member talks about, seniors who live in HDB flats. We will be looking very closely at the this group and seeing how much more we can support them.

But specific to the Lease Buyback Scheme, the subscription rate has, in fact, been going up. We will continue to do more to encourage seniors, who wish to take this opportunity to monetise their housing asset, to be able to do that, and to age in place at the same time.

14 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how many beds for the homeless are in shelters run by (i) the Government and (ii) charitable organisations, respectively; (b) what are the measures to move them to longer-term residences; and (c) what is the success rate of such transition measures particularly for homeless youths and young adults under the age of 35.

Mr Speaker, there are currently seven Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF)-funded Transitional Shelters and 20 Safe Sound Sleeping Places (S3Ps) run by charitable organisations or volunteer groups. The total bed spaces are 730 and 160 respectively.

Transitional Shelters provide onsite social work intervention to residents to help them address underlying issues and work towards stable long-term accommodation options. They also link the residents to community partners and volunteers to provide social support, so that their transition to long-term housing is stable and sustainable.

Youths and young adults aged 35 years may exit the different types of stable long-term accommodation. Some reconcile with their families, while others move to open market rental, or to the Housing and Development Board (HDB) Public Rental Scheme. Based on data in recent years, the average length of stay for youths and young adults in Transitional Shelters was seven months, compared to 10 months for individuals in Transitional Shelters.

I will also invite the Member to refer to the 2025 MSF Street Count report, published recently on 9 January 2026 for more details on how the Government provides support for rough sleepers and the homeless to attain long-term housing stability. MSF will also continue to monitor the situation and address any emerging trends.

Dr Choo.

Thank you, Speaker. I have three supplementary questions. The first one, does the Ministry have dedicated outreach teams to proactively check on rough sleepers and follow up on reports from the public, so that timely assistance can be extended to the homeless? Question two, how does the Ministry assess whether there is sufficient shelter bed capacity and what mechanisms are in place to allow expansion when needed? The last question, what measures are in place to ensure that homeless individuals, particularly youth and young adults, are supported not only with housing, but also with employment opportunities, skills training and mental health services to sustain long-term stability?

Sir, I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. On the first question, our Social Service Office (SSO) officers do accompany our Partners Engaging and Empowering Rough Sleepers (PEERS) Network community partners on a weekly basis, whenever they conduct the night walks. So, whenever we have night walks, and I join them from time to time in a year, we have SSO officers, often times, HDB officers will also be available on WhatsApp, so that we can provide help to our rough sleeping friends on the streets as readily as we can. So, the answer is yes, we do have teams that are supporting our community partners, on the ground, on a sustained basis.

With regards to capacity and utilisation rates, it is a good practice that we have kept from pandemic days, where we work very closely with our community partners to make sure that there is sufficient surge capacity, should there be a need to exercise them.

With regards to youths and young adults who are in the rough sleeping situation, I think it is a quite a different ball game altogether. The joint Institute of Policy Studies (IPS), as well as MSF's homelessness and rough sleeping study that has been published, and I mentioned in my main reply earlier, we have seen some of the trends, and I think it bears repeating some of the observations.

For instance, the first misconception is that there has been a huge rise in youth homelessness. If you compare numbers, in 2022, where we did our last street count of the 530 rough sleepers that we have observed then, there were about 16 rough sleepers on the streets. Last year, where we did our nationwide street count again in 2025, of the 496 rough sleepers, we had about 30. This represented an increase, in terms of percentage, from 3% then in 2022, to 6%.

Absolute numbers wise, it is not a big increase, but I think if you just look at this statistic, it does not give the situation sufficient justice, because we do need to unpack the nuances. Because rough sleeping on the streets present itself as just one option of several, whenever a youth at-risk faces circumstances like academic stress, family disputes or even relationship issues in their life, and resort to running away from home, to sleeping rough on the streets. And another phenomenon that we have observed is that couch surfing is often times also an option.

So, we do need to unpack this in a more nuanced manner with our youth agencies on the ground. MSF will do that, and in time to come, we can share more with the Member, or with this Chamber, when the time arises. But I think we do not want to detract from the main substance of the rough sleeping and homelessness issue in Singapore, and that is the fact that the predominant profile of the rough sleeper in Singapore is still male, middle-aged to older Chinese individuals, and often times, they still remain in employment. In fact, about a good majority of them remain in employment, and many of them, not all rough sleepers are homeless. Half of them do have homes to go back to, so I think this is a call to action from me to everyone, Members of the Chamber, as well as to all out there – if you see a rough sleeper in your neighbourhood, please contact the SSO or the MSF PEERS office.

"More Care, Less Stare". Our rough sleeping friends are going through a rough patch in their life. I think it takes the whole of Singapore to care for these some 500 individuals of them on our streets.

15 Mr David Hoe asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will consider periodically relocating popular schools to neighbourhoods with different housing and socioeconomic status (SES) mixes to better align school access with the principles of meritocracy and social mixing.

Mr Speaker, in planning for schools across Singapore, the Ministry of Education's (MOE's) main objective is to ensure that national as well as localised demand for school places are met. We take into account several factors, including current and projected school-going populations in each residential area, as well as the supply of places provided by the schools in the vicinity.

When the demand for school places falls or is projected to fall in a particular area, we will consider relocating schools in that area, including popular schools, to areas with higher demand. These are usually areas where significant new housing is being developed and the schools will then serve the new residents moving into those areas.

MOE will continue to review our school admissions policies so that our schools continue to remain accessible to children from all backgrounds.

Mr Hoe.

I thank the Minister for his response and I do agree that the principle of relocation of school is sound.

Most recently, a video circulated on social media featuring an individual sharing her primary school experience. She shared that she was the only one in her class living in a Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat and the rest were private property dwellers. In such context, there is a need to consider how social mixing can expand world views and develop empathy for others different from ourselves.

Against this backdrop, I have three supplementary questions. First, what is MOE's view on enabling social mixing in our schools? Second, beyond the Outward Bound Singapore (OBS) experience in Secondary 3, where students from different schools get to interact with each other, what other opportunities are there for students to socially mix with one another from different schools? And lastly, I know of parents who shift house because of the Primary 1 application, and Phase 2C of Primary 1 registration can amplify house-based clustering. Would MOE consider tapping on the admin data of primary school intake profile by housing types, as well as identify schools, within two-kilometre radius, have little, or very low, or no public housing, and prioritise social mixing measures for such schools?

I thank the Member for his three very thoughtful questions. Indeed, social mixing in our schools creates the environment as well as the opportunity with the diversity of students' backgrounds, to enable holistic development of our children. It helps with the social emotional learning. It also supports our students in terms of picking up important 21st century competencies, for example, compassion, understanding, cross-cultural communication skills, collaboration and so on and so forth, and it prepares them not just for the real world in Singapore, but for the world out there after school.

At the same time, in as much as we want diversity and social mixing to help open up our children's horizons, our schools are also not just mirrors that reflect the state of society or of the neighbourhoods in which our schools are located, but also active platforms to enable inclusion, community building, national identity building and in that regard, nation building as well.

The Member spoke about the, I believe, the MOE-OBS Challenge. So, Secondary 3 students across different schools, living together, coming together over a period of time to explore the outdoors, out of their comfort zone, a great opportunity for them to mix, to mingle, to make friends and to build connections, but also for them to overcome challenges together. And I think that is one opportunity for mixing in the great outdoors.

But there are also other ways in which our schools seek to bring children, from different schools and different backgrounds, together. For instance, we have a combined school co-curricular activities (CCAs). The Member may have heard of BMW. It is not a car. It is a girls' football team. It solves a practical challenge, so we have these three schools, on their own, not able to form a team, but coming together, they form a formidable team. So, Boon Lay Secondary School, Methodist Girls' School, as well as Westwood Secondary School. And so, they come together on a regular basis, and they form a team, same identity, same sports gear, same competitor – and I think that creates opportunities.

We also have other school programmes. For example, Raffles Institution (RI) has a RI boarding programme and I have a list here. It is an opportunity for RI students, together with students from Guangyang Secondary School, Pierce Secondary, Whitley Secondary School, Deyi Secondary School, Kuo Chuan Presbyterian Secondary School, Sengkang Secondary School, Bowen Secondary School, and a few others – students will come together, spend a period of time together, mixing, mingling, learning from one another, doing things together.

And of course, there are other CCAs as well, where you see different schools coming together, forming mixed teams, forming mixed CCAs, not just in sports, but also in the performing arts. You have the Singapore Youth Festival, where students come together to put up their best in terms of the performing arts, and they mix and mingle as a result of that process.

We also have cluster-based CCAs, so not mixed schools, but in a cluster, they come together and they are not school-based, but at the cluster, they come together and pursue their interests together. We have competitions and other opportunities where students mix and mingle.

Of course, the Member spoke about Phase 2C. Schools' admissions, both in the primary and secondary school level are efforts to achieve a number of purposes when it comes to school admissions. So, take primary school, for instance, from practicality, so Phase 1, you have a sibling, so you go in, makes it easier for the family, more practical. Phase 2A, to recognise long-standing ties and links, for an "old boy", "old girl" to see their own child go into their old school, I think, strengthens school identity and also strengthens parent-child bonding, in terms of saying, "Well, my child has gone to my old school." And I do not just say this for the popular schools, so to speak, but also all schools where there is an affinity and affiliation link.

There is also the element of distance, because when it comes to schools, particularly primary schools, we would like to also support proximity, convenience, easy for the children to go to school and come back home. And so, that is where Phase 2C comes in, where a certain number of places is ring-fenced for children, regardless of whether they have any links or affiliation to the school or not, premise on the basis of proximity.

But I recognise the Member's concern that in some places where the neighbourhood's constitution of housing is of a particular nature, that may not necessarily result in Phase 2C conducing to the diversity that we aspire to in Singapore, in our schools. But we, as I have said, we continue to study our policies and see how we can further improve those policies and improve our processes to enable our children to have that holistic exposure to the diversity of Singapore.

16 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry will consider (i) reviewing the computational method for the gross monthly household income and per capita income to exclude the income of other family members for young parents residing in their parents’ or relatives’ properties and (ii) factoring caregiving expenses for elderly dependents into the eligibility assessments of the applicants of Additional Subsidy for childcare.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Early Childhood and Development Agency (ECDA) uses the gross monthly household income to assess the amount of means tested additional subsidy that a family qualifies for. This approach looks only at the income of both parents of a child in the family and does not include the income of other family members in the household.

However, we do allow for larger families with five or more household members to be means tested on a per capita basis, which may qualify them for higher subsidies. Their per capita income would be computed using the income of all the family members in the household, divided by the total number of family members in the household. And such families would receive the more favourable means tested result of the two processes.

Mr Muhaimin.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for Minister of State Goh: first, whether the Ministry has engaged social service agencies or family service centres to gather feedback on how current eligibility criteria affect caregiving households. And number question two, whether the Ministry can share a timeline for any planned review of subsidy eligibility frameworks affecting young families.

I thank the Member for the two supplementary questions. Generally, it pertains to feedback and making sure that we stay close to the ground. I would like to reassure the Member that ECDA and MSF are in close contact with the preschools, as well as in close contact with the various family service centres and social service agencies on the ground. We do hear from them in terms of the feedback, whether the means testing processes are streamlined, effective and really serve our residents. We will not shy away from making necessary changes when we do get some feedback.

17 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry has any plans to (i) further reduce upfront costs to hire migrant domestic workers (MDW) for families with young children or vulnerable elderly and (ii) enhance protections against misrepresentation from agencies, and MDWs who commit offences or wish to cease work for reasons not due to employer fault, such as homesickness; and (b) if so, what are these plans.

Mr Speaker, the median upfront recruitment outlay to hire new migrant domestic workers (MDW) is around $4,700, of which half consists of loan to the MDWs that the employer subsequently recovers.

This upfront cost has remained largely stable since 2022, after accounting for inflation. With more than 2,500 employment agencies (EAs) licenced to place MDWs, EAs have to take into account market competition when they are pricing their services. We provide information on Ministry of Manpower's (MOM's) online EA directory to enable employers to compare EAs' track record such as customer service ratings, years of service, and retention and transfer rate of MDWs when choosing EAs.

When there is a mismatch of MDWs with employers, MOM requires EAs to refund employers at least 50% of the service fees paid if MDW's contract is terminated within the first six months of employment without a suitable replacement.

Families with young children and elderly enjoy significant subsidies today in the form of concessionary levies at about $60 a month instead of $300. This amounts to about $5,760 in savings over two years. MOM also has measures in place to protect MDWs' employers' legitimate interest. MDWs who commit serious offences, such as stealing, are barred from future employment in Singapore. Prospective employers may use the FDW e-service portal to assess information about MDWs' past work performance, length of each employment and reasons why these MDWs left their past employment before hiring.

We will continue to regularly review and enhance our measures to safeguard the interests of employers and build a system that is fair to both employers and MDWs.

Dr Choo.

Thank you, Speaker, and thank you to the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the response. I have one supplementary question. Would the Ministry consider establishing benchmark ranges for agency fees based on prevailing market practices to prevent excessive charges and ensure affordability for families?

I thank the Member for the supplementary question. We generally allow agency service fees to be determined by market forces. This competition encourages the EA to differentiate their services and their quality and their price. To note, like what I have mentioned, there are already fee caps on EAs, the amount that they can charge the MDWs, which I mentioned in my reply. And with the data available on the EA directory, such as customer service ratings, years of service, employers can make a more informed decision on pricing. In terms of affordability, there are also other schemes that will provide financial services to families with much heavier caregiving needs. For example, the Caregiving Grant, which provides about $400 of payout, and this will be increased in April 2026 to $600.

I have also mentioned about levy concessions for needy households. Those households who need further assistance can approach social services for additional financial assistance. For families without caregiving needs, they also can consider part time cleaning services under the Household Services Scheme, which may be more affordable.

18 Ms Poh Li San asked the Acting Minister for Transport in view of the high Certificate of Entitlement (COE) prices, whether the Minister will reconsider implementing COE renewal for shorter durations such as annually or two-yearly, so that existing car owners can have more affordable options to extend their cars ownership beyond 10 years.

Mr Speaker, I want to thank Ms Poh for her Parliamentary Question. We understand the concerns of existing car owners who wish to renew their Certificates of Entitlement (COEs). However, we need to balance their interest with those who wish to buy a new car. Today, we already allow existing car owners to renew COEs for five years as a concession. If we allow for shorter renewals, this is likely to amplify the peak and the trough of the COE cycles further. It would mean that more car owners could renew their COEs when prices are high and this would reduce the supply of new COEs for prospective car owners. So, we will not make this move.

Ms Poh.

Thank you, Speaker and Minister. Many of our small businesses, hawkers, for example, they need their vehicles for their businesses, and because of the high quantum of the COE, it is difficult for them to sustain their business because of a very huge, lumpy sum that is needed to pay for the COE. Hence, the suggestion to consider shorter tenures or shorter terms for the COE.

Will there be any possibilities to consider only for the commercial vehicles, for example, in this case, to have a shorter term for renewals, just to help these smaller businesses tide through?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I fully understand the concerns of small business owners who need to continue to have their vehicles to operate, especially in the environment of high COE prices. We already similarly allow commercial vehicle owners to renew their COEs for five years. And in fact, they can do it until the statutory life of their vehicles. It is something that I think is fair, because you also want to allow for new businesses who wish to have access to vehicles to be able to compete for COEs. I think the better approach is for them to be able to bid in the same market and therefore, for the COE to be priced accordingly.

19 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health whether the Ministry has reviewed the impact of New Zealand’s smokefree generation law and its potential appropriateness and effectiveness in Singapore’s context.

Mr Speaker, New Zealand has withdrawn their plans for a smoke-free generation law. We will continue to monitor international developments and learn from the experiences of other countries in the area of tobacco control.

Ms He.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. While it is true that New Zealand has withdrawn the proposed cohort ban, I understand that there were some figures that were published at the time when this was being debated, which indicated that for example, the impact on the budget books to the ban was in the region of maybe a billion New Zealand dollars, but then there were some estimates as well that is anticipate to save billions of dollars in the long run in terms of healthcare costs.

My supplementary question in this regard is, has Singapore done similar estimates and what are the figures for how much we are expecting if let us say if we were to introduce a similar cohort ban? What would be the impact be, both in terms of our revenue, in terms of taxes, and also in terms of the healthcare costs? That is my first supplementary question.

Then the second supplementary question: New Zealand actually did very extensive polling in relation to the support for the ban. I think most of the results have come out very strongly in favour in the population, not just for non-smokers, but also in smokers. So, my question would be, has Singapore carried out similar studies? And what are the findings and whether the Minister of State can share the findings in Singapore, about whether the public is in favour of such a cohort ban?

And finally, I believe I asked a similar question in January 2022, and this question also came out in the House in 2023, where the Minister of State shared at the time that we remain open to such a cohort ban in Singapore, and that this was being studied. I understand as well that countries like the United Kingdom (UK) have actually introduced legislation. It is being debated in the UK Parliament about, I think the UK they were thinking of banning the purchase of cigarettes for those born in 2009 and later. There was a timeline that was mentioned, I believe in January 2023. Can we have more clarity about what our timeline would be for the studying of this cohort ban possibly to be introduced in Singapore?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I note the Member's concern on this policy, and I also want to acknowledge that there were also many other Members when this matter was raised who were very interested in this tobacco-free generation policy, and for its implementation in Singapore.

I wanted to clarify that when we look at learning from other countries, the main focus is looking at what is it that we want to try and resolve, the issue that we want to solve. In Singapore's context, we are looking at the concerns with regard to smoking. We already have in existence a very robust multi-prong strategy with regard to how we want to curb smoking. This includes having a comprehensive mix of policy measures, public preventive education, as well as cessation programmes, including also our tax prohibitions. These efforts have helped us to see a decline in the smoking prevalence, and at this juncture we have achieved an all-time low of 8.4% in 2024.

As we continue to look as to how we can improve the statistics and how we can help the generations moving forward, we do have to be mindful about what is the problem that we want to solve.

We have looked at how the other countries have rolled this out. As I mentioned, New Zealand has decided to repeal this legislation. Malaysia, also, who had announced it, had also removed it. Yes, UK had announced plans in October 2023 for a generation that will not be legally able to purchase tobacco in their lifetime. We will be continuing to look at how they will implement this.

We have concerns about how the implementation will be carried out, and so we are mindful as to how this would affect the implementation here. We are continuing to be open to this. We will announce if there are any movements in this front. You would be interested to know that we continue to be in engagement with Dr Koong Heng Nung, who was the original advocate of tobacco-free generation and we remain open to see how this can evolve.

We will study and see what the developments are in the other countries.

Order. End of Question Time. Personal Explanation. Mr Ng Chee Meng.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. In my supplementary question at the 12 January Sitting, I said that there were three serious fires that resulted in death in Singapore last year, in one particular case in Toa Payoh where the fire spread from the 10th floor to the 11th floor, some residents above had some difficulties evacuating. [Please refer to "Public Education Efforts in Light of Residential Unit Fires in 2025 and Review of Singapore’s Building, Fire and Construction Safety Codes", Official Report, 12 January 2026, Vol 96, Issue 12, Oral Answers to Questions section.]

I would like to clarify and correct that in this particular Toa Payoh case, this did not result in a death. For the record, please.

Order. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Order of the Day and Notice of Motion.

[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [13 January 2026], (proc text)]

[(proc text) "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." – [Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth]. (proc text)]

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

Mr Yip Hon Weng.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is a timely modernisation of our sports framework. Notwithstanding, I have several clarifications on how these expanded powers will translate into everyday outcomes for residents.

Mr, Speaker, Sir, my first clarification concerns everyday access, affordability and the quality of sports facilities.

We often hear that sports participation is at an all-time high, with 74% of residents exercising weekly. However, the Ministry of Health's (MOH's) National Population Health Survey reminds us that the largest contributor to physical activity is commuting, not leisure sports. As we expand Sport Singapore's (SportSG's) functions under clause 6(a), we must be clear that success is measured by active living, not just by walking to the bus stop.

With the broadened mandate under clauses 6(e) and (f) to manage facilities, how will this translate into our estates? Will SportSG prioritise less visible but high-impact infrastructure such as community gyms within a 10-minute walk of neighbourhood blocks over marquee facilities?

Residents also ask a basic question: will they be able to play sports to their heart's content?

Today, securing a court often feels like winning the lottery. We also see rising social friction such as noise disputes involving pickleball. These conflicts indicate that our infrastructure may be struggling to keep pace with trends.

If SportSG is to manage facilities under clause 6(e), how will design standards such as acoustic mitigation and smarter space planning be strengthened so that sports bind the community rather than create tension?

We must also ensure that we are not designing this Bill only for the active majority. Clause 6(a) empowers SportSG to promote fitness, but how will this reach the bottom 20% of neighbourhoods with the lowest activity levels? Without deliberate intervention, expanded powers may simply help the fit get fitter while the inactive remain behind due to cost or constraints.

This leads to the financial powers in clauses 7(b) and (c), allowing grants and loans to individuals. This flexibility is welcomed. However, how will SportSG ensure funds reach small heartland operators? There is a risk that grants flow to large well-resourced organisations while the void deck taekwondo club or the Zumba interest group is deprioritised.

Finally, on this point, the Bill indicates no additional Government expenditure, yet clause 6 significantly expands functions across facilities, accreditation and institutions. If SportSG must do more with the same resources, the Minister must clarify what will be deprioritised. We must ensure that these new regulatory ambitions do not come at the expense of core maintenance and grassroots programmes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my second point concerns the new regulatory powers.

Clauses 6(m) and (n) empower SportSG to establish codes of practice and accredit coaches and facilities. Residents want safety, well-maintained equipment and qualified coaches. However, accreditation can become a barrier to entry. Will these powers inadvertently create a "pay-to-play" system? If freelance instructors and community groups cannot afford the time or cost to navigate accreditation, they may be priced out. We must avoid over-professionalising the sector to the point where affordable community-level coaching disappears. We must also avoid homogenising sports.

Codes under clause 6(m) work for mainstream sports but may stifle organic activities like parkour, street dance or informal seniors' exercises. I ask the Minister to assure the House that we will not regulate these activities out of existence simply because they do not fit into an accreditation box.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my third point concerns the formal recognition of mind sports and e-sports under clause 2. This is a progressive step that validates the aspirations of our youths. However, as a member of the People's Action Party (PAP) Mental Health Group, I sound a note of caution.

Recognition gives credibility to a dream, but it can also become an excuse. Parents already grapple with excessive screen time, only to be told by their children, "I am not addicted, I am training to go pro." The glamour of professional e-sports masks the truth that only a tiny fraction make it while many risk addiction, sleep disruption and neglected studies.

If we legitimise e-sports, we must legitimise the safety framework around it. Will SportSG, exercising powers under clause 6(d), work with MOH and the Ministry of Education (MOE) to establish evidence-based guidelines on screen time and mental well-being? Furthermore, given that e-sports ecosystems are tied to betting and aggressive sponsorship, why does the Bill not include explicit safeguards for minors alongside the expanded accreditation powers?

We must also address the "cliff edge" of an e-sports career. Clause 6(h) enables training institutions. Is there a plan for youths who do not reach the top tier? Career and education support must be core, not peripheral. Will there be plans for aspiring e-sports athletes to be admitted into our Sports School so that academic development progresses in tandem with sporting development? If we recognise the sport, we must protect the athlete.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my fourth point concerns inclusion for seniors and persons with disabilities. I welcome clause 6(b), which names the Singapore National Paralympic Council as a key partner. But naming a partner is not legislating outcomes. Significant barriers remain in transport and facility access. Will facilities managed under clause 6(e) be subject to accessibility standards beyond basic building codes? Can we commit to participation targets for seniors and persons with disabilities? To do this, we need disaggregated data by disability type, age and town. We can only fix what we measure.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 6(h) empowers SportSG to establish institutions to train sportspersons and oversee academic curricula. This strengthens elite development but raises questions about equity. Without clear criteria and financial safeguards, will these institutions favour families who can afford intensive training?

Many national athletes currently juggle fulltime studies or work while competing against fulltime international rivals. We must not build systems that assume athletes can absorb personal financial strain indefinitely.

This brings me to remuneration. If we expect high performance, we must be honest about whether current support is adequate. For many athletes, particularly those who return with medals after years of sacrifice, financial recognition remains limited. I ask the Minister if it is timely to review the incentive framework to better reflect the realities of training at an international level. Beyond money, we must measure success beyond medals.

As SportSG expands its institutional role, we should track graduation rates, post-sport employment and long-term health. If we expect international excellence, we must ensure athletes are supported to go full-time without financial insecurity and that those who do not reach the podium are equipped for life beyond sports.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me end where our residents begin, with the questions they ask in their daily lives. Can I book a court without fighting for it? Can my child learn safely without paying a premium? Can my parents stay active with dignity, not obstacles? Can a young person chase a sporting dream on a track or on a screen without falling off a cliff when the dream ends?

These questions run through the points I have raised today: access to neighbourhood facilities, fair funding for heartland groups, safety without excessive cost, responsible recognition of e-sports, meaningful inclusion for seniors and persons with disabilities, and training pathways that support athletes not just to compete, but to live well beyond sports.

I say this as someone shaped by sports. As a former competitive gymnast, canoeist and dragon boater, I learnt that sports does not just train the body, it trains the spirit. It teaches us how to fall and how to stand up again. It teaches us that progress is never an individual act. It is a relay and we run our leg so the next person can run theirs.

This Bill gives Sport Singapore new powers. But powers are not the point. People are.

The purpose of this House is not to pass laws that look good in print, but to pass laws that work – in parks, in void decks, in schools, in community clubs and in the homes where parents are raising resilient children. We saw this clearly in the recently concluded Southeast Asian Games (SEA Games).

We rightly celebrate our athletes' achievements and medal haul. Once again, we also saw the immense sacrifices made by Singaporeans who train while studying, working and supporting families, often competing against fulltime athletes from other countries. Their performances should make us proud but should also prompt us to reflect on whether our systems are truly designed to support sustained excellence.

So, let us be ambitious but also be honest. Let us build the flagship facilities, yes, but also the quiet corners of fitness that keep a nation healthy. Let us professionalise where needed but never price out the heartland. Let us pursue excellence, but refuse to leave behind the inactive, the vulnerable, the senior, the person with disability or the young person who does not make it to the top.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if we implement this Bill with clear key performance indicators, real inclusion and strong pathways for life beyond sports, we will not just create champions on the field. We will build a stronger Singapore in everyday life. I support the Bill.

Ms Elysa Chen.

Mr Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. The amendments before us expand SportSG's remit in ways that reflect how Singaporeans actually engage with sport today. Chess, bridge and e-sports are no longer just recreational pastimes but are competitive disciplines that demand mental rigour, fill stadiums and attract global audiences in the millions. This Bill's inclusion of mind sports and e-sports in our definition of sports signals that Singapore recognises competitive excellence wherever it emerges.

The Bill also empowers SportSG to establish institutions for elite athlete development, to accredit coaches and facilities, and to support athletes beyond their competitive years. These are practical expansions that will strengthen our sporting ecosystem from grassroots to podium.

But as we broaden SportSG's mandate, we must also sharpen our oversight. Expansion without accountability risks diluting impact and eroding public trust. So, I raise four areas for greater clarity.

Firstly, on governance and protection in new training institutions.

The Bill grants SportSG authority to establish institutions for developing and training sportspersons. This formalises what already exists in practice. Entities like the Singapore Sports School and the Singapore Sport Institute have been nurturing athletes for years. The consolidation of these institutions, announced earlier this year, is happening alongside this legislative change. Building on the Auditor-General's Office's constructive observations in its recent report regarding procurement, grant management and revenue contracting, we have an opportunity to establish clear governance frameworks that will serve SportSG well as it takes on new responsibilities. Strong institutional safeguards now will protect both athletes and public trust as the organisation evolves.

When we task institutions with the holistic development of young athletes, overseeing not just their training but also their academic curricula and well-being, we are asking them to act in loco parentis. The Safe Sport framework exists and the Safe Sport Commission has made progress since its launch.

I would like to ask the Minister: what governance structures will be put in place to ensure these new or consolidated institutions are accountable not just to SportSG, but to the Parliament and to the public? Will their performance indicators, safeguarding records and funding utilisation be reported to this House annually?

Second, on eligibility and support for e-sports and mind sports athletes. The Bill expands the definition of sports to include mind sports and e-sports. This is welcome. But definitions alone do not open doors. What matters is whether athletes in these disciplines will have the same access to funding, facilities and national representation pathways as their counterparts in athletics or football.

The Singapore Esports Association has announced plans for a national training centre. Chess participation has grown by 20% since 2022. These are encouraging signs. Just over the weekend, we launched an e-sports hub in Bishan Community Centre that is purpose-built for seniors. Perhaps one day we might field an inter-generational team to represent Singapore in our community in e-sports competitions!

Are there plans for e-sports and mind sports athletes to be eligible for Scholarships or the High Performance Sport system grants? Are there long-term plans for mind sports and e-sports associations to receive the same level of institutional support as National Sports Associations (NSAs) in traditional sports?

Thirdly, in transparency in accreditation and certification. The Bill grants SportSG new powers to establish codes of practice for coaching, training, equipment and facilities – and to accredit or certify compliance with those standards. This is a regulatory function, not just a developmental one.

What mechanisms will ensure transparency and accountability in the issuance of coaching accreditations, facility certifications and training programme approvals under the amended Act? Will there be independent review panels for contested decisions? Will accreditation criteria and outcomes be published annually?

Lastly, this Bill also expands SportsSG's remit with regard to planning and promoting physical fitness activities alongside sports, fostering research into physical fitness and establishing codes of practice, guidelines and standards for wider coaching, training and equipment. How will SportSG coordinate with MOE and the Health Promotion Board (HPB) to avoid duplication or conflicts in physical fitness education, coaching standards and public wellness initiatives? Are there plans to dovetail initiatives or align longer-term policy changes where there are overlaps in governmental remit?

Mr Speaker, I support this Bill because it reflects a step forward for our sports sector. Competitive sport forges excellence and resilience in our athletes while anchoring Singapore's global reputation; we cannot be a thriving nation without champions. Recently, I the privilege of meeting our SEA Games medalist Isaiah Tang, who started karate lessons in Bishan Community Centre (CC) when he was just seven years old. In his debut at last year's SEA Games Isaiah came back with a bronze medal. I was greatly touched when he asked about what young athletes like him needed. He did not share immediately about funding or recognition but shared instead about opportunities and exposure to competitions. He is the archetype of a home-grown champion that we as a nation should be proud of.

All the same, support is instrumental for the growth, maturity and further development of home-grown talents like Isaiah. He shared that his family flew up to Thailand to cheer him on at the most recent SEA Games. More than just family support, however, our talent requires the resources and opportunities that institutional support brings. This Bill is a large step in the right direction, to further build up the kampung of support around our natural home-grown athletes and champions; but there is still space to grow.

Mr Speaker, I envision a sports scene for Singapore where all people of all talent are given the resources and opportunity to thrive and excel on the regional and world stage regardless of their upbringing, privilege and family background. Where even those of less privilege, or rather, especially those of less privilege, see a clear path of opportunities to grow, excel, thrive and shine.

The athletes we seek to support are giving the best they have to give; whether they compete on a track, a chessboard, or in an arena; therefore, they also deserve nothing less than the best our country can give.

A nation that invests in sport is investing in more than medals – it is investing in discipline, character and shared pride. As we recognise new forms of competitive excellence, our duty is to ensure that every athlete we support is backed by strong institutions and clear accountability. When we invest in sport, we invest in the kind of country we want to be. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Lee Hong Chuang.

Mr Speaker, I rise to support Singapore Sports Council (Amendment) Bill. Mr Speaker, there is a saying "If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together in a team". But today, I want just to add on "If you want to go even further, go together in a bigger team". That is exactly how the Prime Minister described for the "we first" society – we need a village to raise an athlete.

Mr Speaker, before I begin my speech in Mandarin, I would like to declare that I am currently the Vice President of the Singapore Wushu, Dragon and Lion Dance Federation, and also a former national gymnast, coach, judge and managing NSAs.

In my time as a gymnast in 1980s, we had no professional coaches, no professional facilities, needless to say no specialised equipment like today. As schoolmates, we trained one another, learning from books and sheer determination.

I vividly remember my first SEA Games in 1985. We were required to compete in six apparatus, one of the apparatuses is Roman Rings, yet we did not even have the proper equipment to train on. We practised on metal rings instead of the laminated wood. We set up the rings under the blazing sun to train because we did not have a high ceiling hall. Sometimes, the metal rings were so hot causing our palms to burn. And we resorted to training in the night and bear in mind, not much light. Needless to say, when there is rain, we cannot even train. Many of such things happened. Even the training hours, without scientific, we have to train every day from 2.00 pm to 11.00 pm after school. Saturday, Sunday, we train from 8.00 am to 2.00 pm.

That was the reality of being an athlete 40 years ago, driven not by comfort or resources but by passion, resilience and an unwavering commitment to represent Singapore with pride. Mr Speaker, with that, I will now continue my speech in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, I support the Singapore Sports Council (Amendment )Bill.

This amendment makes our sports policy framework more comprehensive and better able to address Singapore's future sporting needs. It not only updates the system, but also better reflects how Singaporeans participate in sports, responding to the lifestyle habits and needs of different age groups.

When I was young, I was a national gymnast. On the gymnastics floor, I learnt not just techniques, but focus, discipline and sportsmanship and these values have stayed with me to this day, benefiting me for life. I still remember the moments of falling down again and again during training, then getting back up and the encouragement and interaction between teammates. The unwavering strength to "take a step forward" is what sports gave me.

Today, when I see residents of different generations exercising at community clubs, neighbourhood parks and schools, I am reminded of the values that sports bring us. Sports make communities more vibrant and the spirit that sports convey transcends time, age and background.

This amendment is to ensure this lifestyle receives better support, a safer environment and a more sustainable direction for development.

First, the amendment updates the definition of "sport" to include mind sports and e-sports within the statutory scope. In our communities, elderly people play chess, young people are passionate about e-sports and children try new physical activities. The forms are different, but they all require strategy, focus and endurance and can also cultivate team spirit. Including these activities in the definition of "sport" allows the Sports Council to more systematically and purposefully support and manage these developments, ensuring they grow on a healthy and safe trajectory. This also reminds us that the value of sports should not be measured only in traditional ways. As long as the direction is right, mind sports and e-sports can, like traditional sports, help participants build confidence, discipline and team spirit.

Second, the amendment expands the Sports Council's functions to formally include physical activities within its scope. More residents are participating in physical activities such as yoga, strength training, fitness classes and running. These activities improve physical and mental health and also create more interaction between neighbours. Including physical activities in the Council's responsibilities means the Government recognises the public value of these activities and provides a clearer framework for promoting community fitness programmes in the future. This will further promote a culture of "Active together", making exercise a lifestyle that more residents can easily and sustainably participate in.

Third, the amendment empowers the Council to establish standards for coaches, facilities and equipment, improving the safety and quality of sporting environments. Regardless of which sport they participate in, residents should be active in safe and reliable environments. Establishing standards can ensure coaches have the necessary capabilities, equipment meets safety requirements and facilities are properly maintained.

But whilst raising standards, we must also ensure we don't inadvertently increase burdens, especially for small sports organisations, community clubs and grassroots coaches. They are often important entry points for children, elderly people and beginners to access sports, and are an indispensable part of the sports ecosystem. True team spirit means giving everyone opportunities, not leaving people behind. When establishing standards, listening widely to opinions and ensuring standards are appropriate can promote the healthy development of the entire sports ecosystem.

Fourth, the amendment further strengthens the institutional foundation for athlete development. Athlete development requires systematic cultivation and stable support, including connections between school, community and national-level training systems. The revision allows the Council to more clearly support training institutions, and makes different training pathways smoother, giving more young people with potential opportunities for continued development.

Fifth, we must also face the resource allocation challenges we may encounter. As sporting forms continue to increase, demand for facilities, programmes and coaching resources will also rise accordingly. Facing these potential challenges, I propose three suggestions:

First, establish a clear outcome-oriented resource framework, prioritising resources in areas that can bring the greatest social benefits. When resources are limited, we must ensure every investment produces maximum public value.

Second, strengthen inter-agency cooperation. Schools, community clubs, sports institutions and businesses have different resources and venues. If we can better share and coordinate, we can benefit more residents without significantly increasing budgets. When resources can be shared, sports can go further and reach more people.

Third, conduct "precision expansion" for programmes that show obvious growth and have long-term benefits for public health. For example, family fitness activities, mind sports and some rapidly growing new programmes can start with small-scale pilots, then gradually expand based on effectiveness.

Resource expansion cannot be blind, but requires precise and detailed planning, ensuring every new investment truly benefits more Singaporeans. At the same time, I would like to propose three considerations for the Government in long-term sports resource planning:

First, as programmes continue to increase, how should resource allocation be based on a national outcomes framework to avoid weakening support for existing community sports? Second, if sporting demand continues to rise, will the Government appropriately expand resources based on long-term public health goals, rather than just redistributing within existing resources? Third, when establishing new standards, how can we ensure standards are reasonable and would not burden small organisations excessively, excluding them from the sports ecosystem?

Mr Speaker, this amendment not only improves the system, but also establishes a more solid foundation for our country's sports ecosystem. Gymnastics training taught me that step by step, with continuous effort, we can create real change. This amendment may not immediately produce champions, but it can help more Singaporeans become healthier, happier and more confident in the sporting ecosystem we are building.

(In English): Mr Speaker, this Bill strengthens our national sports framework, making it more comprehensive and future-ready. It better reflects our Singaporeans of all ages' participation in sports and physical activity today.

As a former national gymnast, I experienced firsthand how sports build not just physical skill, but discipline, focus, resiliency and sportsmanship. These values stayed with me for life and continue to shape who I am today. Sports connects generations and communities. Whether in community clubs, parks or schools, sport builds energy, inclusion and a shared sense of purpose across age and background.

Key enhancements in the Bill: one, updating the definition of "sports". The Bill formally includes mind sports and e-sports. These activities, like traditional sports, require strategy, focus, endurance and teamwork. Including them allows for better governance and support, ensuring healthy and responsible development while recognising changing participation patterns.

Two, expanding the Council's role to include physical activity. Activities, such as yoga, fitness training, aerobics and running, are increasingly popular and contribute significantly to physical and mental well-being. Including these activities affirms their public value and provides a clearer framework to promote active lifestyles across communities.

Three, raising safety and quality through standards. The Bill empowers the Council to set standards for coaches, facilities and equipment, improving safety and quality. At the same time, standards must be proportionate and inclusive, so that small sports organisations, community clubs and grassroots coaches are not overburdened or, worse, excluded.

Four, strengthening athlete development pathways. Athlete development requires coordinated and sustained support, from schools to community, then to national systems. The amendments provide clearer institutional support for training providers and smoother pathways for young athletes to develop their potential.

Managing some of our future challenges. As sports and activities diversify, demand for facilities, programmes and coaches will increase. Thus, I propose: one, a clear, outcomes-based resource framework to maximise social impact; two, stronger cross-sector collaboration among schools, community clubs, sports bodies and even private partners to share resources effectively; three, targeted and phased expansion of high-growth activities with strong public health benefits, starting with pilots and scaling based on outcome.

There are also some long-term considerations that we need to take note. One, how resource allocation can expand without weakening existing community sports. Two, whether resources should grow in line with long-term public health goals or not just reallocated. Three, how new standards can be set without imposing excessive burdens on smaller organisations.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, this Bill does not just update legislation; it lays a stronger foundation for Singapore's sports ecosystem. As in any sports, progress comes step by step, through consistent effort. This Bill may not immediately produce champions tomorrow, but it will help more Singaporeans become healthier, happier and more confident. For these reasons, I support the Bill.

Ms Joan Pereira.

Mr Speaker, the proposed amendments in this Bill will help Singaporeans from all walks of life lead a more active lifestyle for better mental and physical health. The Bill will also enhance our current system and framework to support and boost the performance standards for our athletes.

I will focus on four aspects: first, supporting active ageing through mind sports; second, engaging youths through e-sports; third, professionalising sport as a career; and last, expanding flexible sports spaces while managing residents' needs.

First, engaging our seniors through active ageing and mind sports. Singapore's rapidly ageing population requires innovative approaches to keep our seniors active, engaged and cognitively healthy. As SportSG continues to expand physical fitness activities under ActiveSG programming, how will the Ministry ensure that the needs and aspirations of our increasing number of seniors are sufficiently catered for?

I commend the great work on offering free workout classes in the community, including many senior-friendly classes, such as "Gold" Zumba or the "Lite" version of KpopX, which are very well-received by my residents. I hope that the funding for this will continue in the long term as it has gotten many seniors to remain active and form social bonds.

I would like to ask if there would be specific funding allocations, training and recruitment of coaches with better understanding of the physical needs and constraints of older men and women to continually deliver on fitness programmes suitable for our seniors?

This Bill recognises mind sports, such as chess, bridge, weiqi and xiangqi, which are very much enjoyed by both our young and our seniors. Mind sports provide participants with intellectual stimulation and social interaction. They are activities that all can enjoy and have fun playing, regardless of age or physical abilities. This accessibility is transformative as it allows for greater inclusivity. Unlike many physical sports that require certain fitness levels or mobility, mind sports can engage seniors competitively while delivering measurable cognitive, mental and social benefits.

For seniors, the benefits of mind sports extend beyond recreation. Research consistently shows that cognitively engaging activities, like chess, reduce the risk of Alzheimer's disease and cognitive decline. Mind sports foster social connection, reduce isolation and provide structured competitive outlets that build community.

Could the Ministry consider making it a goal to tap on mind sports to support active ageing objectives, by providing more avenues and opportunities for our seniors to remain mentally active as well? How will SportSG leverage mind sports to engage seniors and foster inter-generational bonding? Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] For seniors, the benefits of mind sports extend beyond recreation. Research shows that cognitively engaging activities like chess reduce the risk of cognitive decline. Mind sports foster social connection, reduce isolation, and provide competitive outlets that build community. Could the Ministry consider making it a goal to tap on mind sports to support active ageing objectives, by providing more opportunities for our seniors to remain mentally active as well? How will SportSG leverage mind sports to engage seniors and foster inter-generational bonding?

(In English): Second, engaging our youths through an evolving sports scene. Our youths are active in an ever-evolving sports scene. E-sports represents a particularly significant opportunity. It is a growing sector that commands massive audiences.

Formal recognition matters deeply to young Singaporeans, including those who excel in e-sports. It signals that their passions are valued, that pathways exist for excellence and that representing Singapore at the SEA Games and Asian Games, where e-sports has been a medal event since 2019 and 2023 respectively, is a legitimate national aspiration and not simply a hobby.

The much-needed formal acknowledgment will pave the way for funding their training and participation at regional and international competitions, enabling them to hone their skills. The attractive prize rewards will make their pursuits a viable sporting career, like other more traditional sports.

Third, uplifting professionalism by making sport a viable career. One of the most important component of this Bill is to uplift the professionalism of sport and make it a viable, long-term career option for Singaporeans. Official recognition provides athletes with support and development pathways. For Singapore to build a vibrant sports ecosystem, we must signal clearly that sports, in all its forms, can be a credible, sustainable career.

Our talented athletes need more financial and institutional support to attain excellence in order to pursue sports professionally. I am heartened that this Bill aims to addresses that gap through three key mechanisms. However, I seek some clarifications, too.

First, the Bill empowers SportSG to establish and maintain quality standards and codes of practice for coaching, equipment and facilities, supported by accreditation systems. I would like to ask, what is the Ministry's strategy to attract talented coaches to Singapore?

Second, the consolidation of Singapore Sports School and the High Performance Sport Institute into a single entity enhances end-to-end service delivery across the youth and senior athlete spectrum. The new model signals holistic support through education, career transitions and life after sport. Would the Minister share in greater detail the measures to support athletes in their lives after their sports career end?

Third, recognition of e-sports and mind sports creates entirely new career paths. The e-sports sector generates jobs for software developers, graphic designers, event managers, marketing specialists, casters and production crews. Would the Government be able to consider introducing training schemes to develop talents in this sector?

Fourth, expanding flexible sports facilities while managing disamenities. Last, infrastructure. Under the Sports Facilities Master Plan, SportSG aims to provide most Singaporeans with affordable sport facilities within a 10-minute walk of their homes by around 2030. This is not merely about convenience, it is about removing barriers to participation and embedding sports into the daily community life.

However, expanding access must be balanced with residents' quality of life. For example, the rise of pickleball illustrates the tension vividly. There were many complaints about pickleball noise in Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates. Residents, especially night shift workers, have reported being disturbed by the distinctive sound of pickleball. There have also been complaints by residents living in the proximity of other sports facilities, such as basketball courts.

Our town councils have responded pragmatically. Besides closing the courts and switching lights off earlier, signs remind players to be considerate and keep noise down, and town councils encourage the use of quieter sports equipment.

While these ground-up responses are commendable, as we expand facilities under the Sports Facilities Master Plan, we must proactively design for noise mitigation and considerate use. This means incorporating acoustic buffers and scheduling guidelines into design and fostering a culture of mutual respect between players and residents. SportSG's new mandate to establish codes of practice for equipment and facilities must ensure that embedded noise management standards into facility design and operation are included from the outset.

I would also like to use this opportunity to call out the urgency for other important sports facilities, like an Olympic-sized ice rink, which Singapore has not had for a number of years. Our ice hockey and ice-skating athletes have had to go for their trainings in neighbouring countries. Not only that, such a facility will encourage more young people to explore their talents in ice sports and provide a fun place for families to enjoy and stay active. I would like to call upon our Government to prioritise the provision of such a facility.

In conclusion, this Bill embodies a balanced, inclusive vision for sport in Singapore. It recognises that sport serves multiple purposes: first, keeping seniors cognitively engaged; second, connecting with youth through formats they find meaningful; third, creating viable career pathways for athletes and coaches; and fourth, providing accessible, flexible facilities in every neighbourhood. This will encourage all residents, young and old, to participate meaningfully in our sporting culture. I support the Bill.

Acting Minister David Neo.

Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Members for their support of the Bill, as well as their comments and suggestions.

Several Members in the House spoke about how we can support our athletes better, during and after their careers. Mr Alex Yam, Ms Gho Sze Kee, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Ms Joan Pereira spoke about support for athletes' transition to life after sport.

Our athletes have similar aspirations to many Singaporeans – they want to pursue higher educational qualifications, start and grow their careers and work towards financial stability. And we agree with Members that we should support them to pursue these aspirations. Let me cite a few recent enhancements.

First, support for education. We launched the spexEducation Undergraduate Scholarships and we awarded them to our inaugural batch last year.

Ms Valerie Lee asked about the selection criteria. We focus our resources on supporting our full-time spexScholars who are best able to benefit from this scholarship, including the daily training environment that their Institute of Higher Learning provides if they are studying and competing at the same time. Or if they intend to study only after they retire from competitive sports, then we consider the course that they are pursuing and the potential future contributions to the sports sector.

One such example is Jessica Tan, our mixed doubles badminton Olympian and 2022 Commonwealth champion. After a very successful career, Jessica retired last year and she is now pursuing a degree in sport management and coaching. After her graduation, she will return back to contribute to our sports sector.

Second, support for career transitions. Through our spexBusiness initiative, we partner a network of supportive companies from diverse industries to provide athletes with career support, flexible workplace practices and development opportunities for their career after sport.

And third, support for finances. We regularly review and have recently increased our spexScholars' monthly stipends. On top of that, they now receive Central Provident Fund (CPF) top-ups, bolstering their finances to better meet their housing, medical and retirement needs.

Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked about support for former national athletes, including healthcare. We support our athletes' transition into retirement from their competitive sporting careers by helping them find good employment. Active and retired athletes can also tap on various programmes, including spexBusiness and spexEducation, which I mentioned, and we have recently enhanced.

In addition, there are national schemes to support healthcare and other needs of Singaporeans. For example, our public healthcare financing system, the S+3Ms – namely subsidies, MediShield Life, MediSave and MediFund – help keeps healthcare affordable for all Singaporeans.

Dr Charlene Chen spoke about supporting our athletes' mental well-being. The High Performance Sport Institute proactively monitors our athletes' mental health and provides them with support throughout their sporting career. With a dedicated Athlete Life Management team, the High Performance Sport Institute equips our athletes for life, helping them develop the skills and mental resilience needed to deal with life's challenges, including after retirement from sport.

And we will do more. We are deepening our capabilities in sports science and sports medicine as well as athlete life management, so that we support our athletes holistically, for both their sporting and non-sporting needs and across their life stages.

And that is also why we are also amending this Bill to allow us to organise ourselves better to serve our athletes, bringing together and streamlining expertise through consolidating the High Performance Sport Institute and Singapore Sports School into a single entity. Through this entity, we will strengthen our partnerships with key stakeholders in the High Performance Sport ecosystem, bringing together different specialists in their fields, for example, coaches, psychologists, athlete-life managers and sport administrators, in a clear, comprehensive way to provide wrap-around support for our athletes, helping them stay in competitive sports for as long as they can.

I agree with Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh and Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim on the benefits of integration, and their support for us to bring the Singapore Sports School to Kallang and integrate all elements of the High Performance Sport ecosystem under one roof in the new home of Team Singapore.

To Ms Elysa Chan's question on accountability, I would like to assure the Member that the entity will still be funded by the Government and be accountable to the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) and Parliament.

I thank Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik for his question.

With the consolidation, the Singapore Sports School remains a specialised independent school and will continue receiving support from both MOE and MCCY. The Singapore Sports School will continue to provide education to national and aspiring athletes. Besides serving the academic needs of student-athletes, the Singapore Sports School will expand its role to provide career guidance support to other national athletes.

The excellent track record of our Team Singapore athletes gives us confidence that our sporting ecosystem is developing in the right direction. Let me cite some examples.

At the recent SEA Games, our Singapore Sports School students and alumni accounted for almost half of our total Gold medal tally. Shuttler and Singapore Sports School alumnus, Loh Kean Yew, became Singapore's first-ever badminton world champion at the 2021 BWF World Championships. Our most decorated Paralympian, Yip Pin Xiu, is a seven-time Paralympic gold medallist and eight-time World Champion, with two world records to her name. Our kite foiling sensation, Max Maeder, is a double world champion, and won Bronze at his Olympic debut in Paris 2024. His other accolades include winning Gold thrice at the Trofeo Princesa Sofia Regatta, two Golds and a Silver at the Formula Kite World Championships, and an Asian Games Gold at Hangzhou 2022. Amanda Yap become Singapore's first-ever gymnast to reach a World Championships Final and placed sixth at the 2025 Artistic Gymnastics World Championship. In bowling, Singapore Sports School alumni, Darren Ong, made history as the first male Singaporean bowler to claim the Men's Singles title at the 2023 IBF World Championships since 2006. And at the same championships, sisters Cherie and Daphne Tan shared a special moment, winning the women's doubles gold medal. In silat, we have Sheik Farhan Sheik Alau'ddin, our five-time world champion who secured multiple world titles at events, such as the World Pencak Silat Championships. In wushu, Singapore Sports School student-athlete Zeanne Law was crowned World Champion twice in Women's Taijiquan in 2023 and 2024. And at the 2023 World Wushu Championships, Singapore Sports School alumnus Jowen Lim won his first world championship title in "gunshu".

I cite all these achievements because I do not want us to be mistaken that we think the system is working well just because we had a record medal haul in the SEA Games. The system is working well because our athletes have done us proud at all the different world level competitions.

We all have a part to play in growing sports excellence in Singapore. As a small nation with a small talent base, we are competing with nations who are multiple times larger than us, and with budgets that are significant and increasing. Our approach has always been one to partner with all stakeholders and complement each other's strengths, as Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh pointed out, so that we can maximise our investments. The amendment to section 8(d) of the Act reflects this, where we are shifting from consultation to working in partnership with stakeholders to bring about better outcomes.

The National Sport Associations (NSAs) play an important role in promoting and uplifting their respective sports, and many NSAs have done good work with their grassroots and through their developmental programmes. The consolidation of the High Performance Sport Institute and Singapore Sports School into a single entity will also deepen our partnerships with NSAs and provide synergistic and holistic support to our athletes.

Coaches play a pivotal role in shaping both athletic performance and the broader sporting environment. Ms Joan Pereira made several sound suggestions on recruiting and developing coaches.

MCCY and SportSG continually review our coach education and development programmes under CoachSG, with a view to building a deep and sustainable pipeline of coaching talents to support our athletes to achieve our High Performance Sport ambition, as well as to provide clear development and progression pathways, from grassroots to high performance coaches for elite athletes. This is in line with our tiered coaching pathways as guided by a competency framework. Through initiatives, such as the Coach Development Grant, our coaches also receive subsidies in course fees to pursue specialised training, including to develop suitable skills and expertise to help our ageing citizens stay physically active and healthy.

Various Members also spoke about the importance of having good access to sports facilities and the challenges that some residents face in booking public courts.

Today, through the Sport Facilities Master Plan, Singaporeans can access public sports facilities near to where they live. And we will continue to improve this. We provide a mix of larger sport centres in towns and smaller facilities in our neighbourhoods for easy access, particularly for seniors and young families.

The roughly 50% increase in the number of Singaporeans who participate in sport and fitness activities weekly, over the past decade, simply means it will be a little bit harder for our residents to book courts at the time and place that they want. We understand this and we plan to increase the provision of courts. We will share more details when ready.

Given the scarcity of land in Singapore, we have been innovative by activating underutilised spaces. For example, the CTE viaduct in Jalan Bukit Merah has been transformed into a touch tennis court, while the space under the Gali Batu Flyover will be used for futsal, pickleball courts and a fitness corner. Rooftops of multi storey carparks are also being repurposed as recreational spaces, such as the upcoming facility in Dover Crescent. We will also continue to explore and partner others to open up more spaces for play and tapping on existing collaborations, like the Dual-Use Scheme with schools.

I agree with Ms Valerie Lee that our sports facilities should serve the needs of a broad range of entities, in addition to our national sports associations. So, for example, our ActiveSG facilities and facilities at The Kallang are used by community sports groups, grassroots organisations, schools and corporates to host events and activities, such as the National School Games, Sport Days, community carnivals, festivals, sports competitions and charity events, like Football with a Heart.

Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Yip Hon Weng suggested having a code of practice for sports facilities in HDB estates.

Well, our approach is not to be overly prescriptive and allow flexibility to accommodate residents' preferences, given that each precinct in Singapore is a little bit different. At the same time, SportSG will work with all the relevant stakeholders, including the NSAs and, where possible, consider other solutions in terms of facility design or choice of equipment. We will work within our land constraints and we will continue to find innovative ways of providing public access to a diverse mix of sports.

Ms Joan Pereira asked whether there will be a new ice rink. SportSG and other agencies have been working closely with the ice sport NSAs on this matter. The Singapore Ice Skating Association has since launched a request for a proposal to develop and operate an ice rink and is reviewing the proposals received. In the same spirit, we will continue to partner with respective NSAs to support our athletes' short- and long-term training needs.

I am glad to hear Members’ support for recognising a more diverse group of sports. Recognition can help them increase membership, develop talent and secure funding or sponsorship. Some of these newer sports will also catalyse the supporting industries. For example, in the area of e-sports, create more demand for software developers and graphic designers.

I would like to assure Members that our intent is not to be overly prescriptive about what constitutes or not constitute a mind sport or e-sport. Instead, our focus is on supporting the diverse interests of Singaporeans, so that we can promote and develop sports in Singapore and as Ms Poh Li San said – to uplift and bond our nation through sports. We welcome suggestions to make this clearer to interested stakeholders and will continue to engage the sector closely.

And to Mr David Hoe, I have to say that for something to be considered a mind sport, it needs to be affiliated to an NSA, who is in turn affiliated to an International Federation. So, I do not think Toto will make the list anytime soon.

I would also like to assure Mr Fadli Fawzi that SportSG will continue to work with commercial entities to support a more vibrant and diverse sporting ecosystem. For example, SportSG partnered with close to 20 commercial partners for last year’s Singapore Urban Sports and Fitness Festival, and over 50 commercial partners for the inaugural Olympic Esports Week in 2023.

The recognition of more sports also offers an opportunity to engage various segments of population in different ways as Ms Joan Pereira has pointed out. Seniors can be engaged through mind sports to keep them mentally and socially active, which will complement today’s physical activity programmes offered by Government agencies and community partners. Indeed, as Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr David Hoe pointed out too, there is also an opportunity to engage youths through e-sports, given its popularity.

I agree with Dr Charlene Chen, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr David Hoe that we should do so while addressing all the possible risks, such as potential issues with regard to gaming addiction. We will work with industry and community partners such as the Singapore Cybersports and Online Gaming Association and the Singapore Esports Association, as well as Government agencies like MOE and MOH to do so.

I thank Members for understanding that an expanded definition of sport does not mean that we will support all sports equally given the need for us to use public funds wisely. I agree with Ms Valerie Lee, Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim, Mr David Hoe and Dr Hamid Razak that the development of new sports, including e-sports should complement rather than crowd out existing sporting pathways, especially those that promote physical activity and broad-based participation.

As Dr Charlene Chen pointed out, one such pathway is the Direct School Admission (DSA). MOE schools have the autonomy to offer programmes that suit their students' needs and interests. MOE prioritises physical sports in the National School Games as movement and regular physical activity are fundamental to students' holistic development and health. For other types of sports, there are competition platforms organised by various organisations for students to represent their schools.

Members including Mr Alex Yam, Mr Lee Hong Chuang, Dr Kenneth Goh, Mr David Hoe, Ms Elysa Chan also talked about our funding principles. Broadly, we calibrate the amount of support for sports based on their specific needs, governance standards and contribution to our national sporting objectives, which includes the ability of the sport and its competition to inspire the Singapore spirit. We regularly review our support for sports and will continue to engage with the NSAs and other partners, like Singapore National Olympic Council and Singapore National Paralympic Council, so that we can collectively move in the same direction to uplift Singapore sports.

Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Lee Hong Chuang, Mr Fadli Fawzi asked how we would ensure fiscal sustainability. Within our land, manpower and funding constraints, we have found ways to support non-traditional sports, whether through support for athletes, such as the Athletes’ Inspire Fund, which defrays the costs for athletes in emerging sports participating in regional competitions, or working with NSAs to strengthen governance, obtain charity status and gain access to donations and matching grants to help grow their sports, such as the One Team Singapore Fund, or providing event and facility support, such as to host events like the 2023 World Youth Tchoukball Championship in Singapore.

To complement Government funding, we encourage corporates to come in to support our TeamSG athletes. We have seen some good examples, including Yeo Hiap Seng sponsorship to Max Maeder in 2022 to support his journey towards the 2024 Paris Olympics, and subsequent extension of their sponsorship deal by another four years from 2025 to 2028.

And we will make sport more accessible and inclusive for everyone. I would like to thank Mr Alex Yam, Dr Kenneth Goh, Ms Valerie Lee, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim who have spoken up on the importance of disability sport as a driver for inclusivity.

That is why we refreshed the Disability Sports Master Plan (DSMP) in 2024 to raise sport participation for persons with disabilities, focusing on three key strategic themes: First, to increase accessibility to disability sports programmes and activities; second, to enhance awareness of disability sports and inclusive sports activities, and; third, fulfil aspirations of persons with disabilities who desire and have the potential to do sports at the high performance level.

One of the strategic moves in the DSMP seeks to enhance the competencies of coaches in disability sports. We target to more than double the number of registered coaches under the National Registry of Coaches who can coach persons with disabilities, from 120 to 300 by 2030. This will complement other moves to increase the number of regular participants in disability sports programmes from 3,200 today to about 5,400 by 2030. We will work closely with various partners like schools, sports associations and community partners to implement the various strategic moves as laid out in the DSMP.

Ms Gho Sze Kee suggested the merging of the Singapore National Olympic Council and the Singapore National Paralympic Council. Both councils are independent and have their respective missions of developing and promoting the Olympic and Paralympic movements respectively, and amongst others, preparing our athletes for major games. I am sure they will take to heart the suggestion. There will be benefits with the current arrangement and there will be other possible benefits with a merger. And it comes down to which structure will allow them to meet their mandate and mission better and which structure serves Singapore and Team Singapore better. Both councils have done great work in uplifting sports and athletes in their sectors and MCCY and SportSG will continue working closely with them.

I would also like to thank Ms Poh Li San, Dr Hamid Razak and Dr Charlene Chen for their suggestions on ensuring a wider representation of professionals or experts in sports education, disability sports, sports psychology, sports tourism, community sports and senior sports on the Board of SportSG. This is in line with our plans to diversify SportSG Board’s expertise to enable it to lead the sport sector well.

The maximum of 25 members on the Board of SportSG provides us the scope to bring on board more diverse expertise and perspectives, and is in line with the size of other Statutory Boards. This is a maximum number, it is not a target, and we will continue to ensure that the Board runs effectively and efficiently.

Our society is aging rapidly. It is imperative that we work together to keep our seniors active and healthy through sports and physical fitness activities. Members Mr Alex Yam, Dr Charlene Chen and Mr David Hoe as well as Ms Joan Pereira have raised this. One key initiative is the Frailty Prevention Programme (FPP) that we have been progressively introducing to our Active Ageing Centres (AACs).

There are two key components to the FPP. First, the Combat Age-Related Loss of Muscle programme (CALM), which is an eight-week programme targeted at seniors to help them understand muscle health through assessment, guided strength training, and health coaching. Since September 2024, over 1,200 seniors from 54 AACs have completed the programme. After going through CALM, almost all seniors reported an improvement in at least one of five measurements, with at least 85% of them improving in at least three of these measurements. We will continue to run more runs of CALM and consider expanding them to the Residents Network as well should there be interest.

Second, introducing adaptive sports to seniors in AACs. This allows them to continue to reap the benefit of sport, while calibrating the level of physical exertion. This culminated in the inaugural Seniors National Games last year, where 4,500 seniors representing 110 AACs competed across five adaptive sports.

Some Members also asked about helping children and youth from disadvantaged backgrounds access sports. Sport can provide a safe and structured environment for them to build confidence, resilience and stronger connection to friends and society. SportSG provides a SportCares Bursary for children and youths from low-income families to participate in ActiveSG Academies and Clubs. We will continue to work closely with stakeholders and community partners to identify suitable children and youths for our initiatives and ensure that more can benefit.

SportSG will also continue to design and administer grants and programmes that can benefit different segments of the population, to strengthen our ecosystem or increase access to sport. For example, the Communities of Care Grant. This has played a vital role in supporting smaller organisations like Amplify, enabling them to create meaningful change in the lives of vulnerable communities. Through their functional fitness program, Amplify empowers youth at risk, seniors, and persons with disabilities by promoting holistic wellness and fostering a sense of community. Beneficiaries develop physical strength, resilience, and leadership skills, while gaining valuable industry knowledge for future employment opportunities.

We are also working to ensure that our people engage in physical fitness activities safely. I am encouraged by the Members’ support towards SportSG’s calibrated approach. As Mr Alex Yam, Dr Hamid Razak, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Lee Hong Chuang and Dr Charlene Chen pointed out, over-regulation would deter smaller players or grassroots groups.

Our current focus is to ensure baseline standards and eventually uplift the sector. For example, Registered Exercise Professionals under the National Registry of Exercise Professionals hold relevant fitness or exercise certifications and are also certified in Standard First Aid. These are not intended to be onerous but are simple and essential requirements for a more developed industry for Singaporeans’ benefit. We will continue to review our approach and engage the sector.

Mr Fadli Fawzi asked about a potential conflict of interest SportSG’s expanded function to manufacture and supply sport and physical equipment, as well as to set standards for such equipment in clause 6(m) and 6(l) of the Bill. To clarify, SportSG typically does not manufacture sports or physical fitness equipment for sale. Items provided are usually meant to provide a service to Singaporeans, such as gym towels or water-bottles for children. SportSG also periodically provides sport-related items such as sport-resistance bands or TeamSG premiums, as part of its role to promote an active lifestyle or to strengthen public support for Team Singapore athletes.

Ms Elysa Chen asked about the accountability of standards set and approvals given. The criteria for being registered on the National Registry of Coaches and National Registry of Exercise Professionals and the names of coaches and exercise professionals is listed on the respective registries and publicly available. The requirements for accreditation are also objective, such as first aid certification. SportSG will continue to be objective and transparent as it seeks to uplift industry standards in partnership with our stakeholders.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have achieved much progress in developing a vibrant sports culture in Singapore over the last five decades. We have significantly raised sports participation for Singaporeans from all walks of life – from one in two just a decade ago, to three in four today. We have made a significant leap in our regional performance, returning from the recent SEA Games in Bangkok with a record haul of medals.

We are on the right track to scale the next bound of sports in Singapore.

First, we are making “hardware” investments in Kallang to integrate the Singapore Sports School with our High Performance Sport Institute and build a new home for Team Singapore.

Second, we are transforming our “software” to support our youth and senior athletes holistically with deeper investments in sports science and sports medicine and stronger partnerships with our NSAs.

Third, we have set out a masterplan and we are running programmes and initiatives to be more inclusive through sport by empowering persons with disabilities, outreaching to vulnerable youths and supporting students of all abilities to provide good access sports in schools and to nurture a love for sport from young.

Last but not least, we are setting standards to ensure our people engage in physical activities safely, so that Singaporeans can lead active and healthy lifestyles.

I thank all Members for supporting this Bill. At this juncture, I also want to thank Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Lee Hong Chuang, Ms Poh Li San and Dr Kenneth Goh for reminding us that sport at any level is not just about winning and doing well. It is also about inculcating values, building character and giving ourselves a sense of who we are as a nation. It is about how we respond when our team needs us.

Dr Kenneth Goh gave us the examples of Josh Chua, Koen Pang, Izaac Quek and Victoria Lim putting team before self and nation before self. And there were many more examples that we witnessed at the many sporting events, in our schools and communities as well.

It is about how we respond in defeat.

While we had a record medal haul at the SEA Games, we had our share of disappointments as well. Our netball team, who are Asian youth champions, suffered an agonising three-point loss in the finals. But that is sport. There will be good days and there will be bad days. What matters is we always come back, stronger.

That is how our support for our athletes should be. We support them when they are doing well and we support them even more if they are not doing well. That is how sport bonds and uplifts us as a nation – not because we win all the time, but because we know how difficult it is to win and we always come back, stronger.

Sir, the impact of this Bill will depend on what we do from here. From providing more support for our athletes beyond sports, participating actively in our lineup of programmes, stepping forward to contribute to a vibrant and inclusive sporting ecosystem, there is a role for everyone.

There is much to look forward to for Singapore's sports. We will continue to work closely with all stakeholders to implement this Bill effectively and ensure that our national sport ecosystem remains inclusive, dynamic and future-ready. Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek to move. [Applause.]

Are there any clarifications for the Minister? Looks like it is a very comprehensive round-up. No clarifications?

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

[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]

[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr David Neo]. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee. (proc text)]

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

The citation year "2025" will be changed to "2026", as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.

[(proc text) Clauses 1 to 9 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]

Order. Before we commence the debate on the Motion, I wish to draw hon Members' attention to certain provisions in our Standing Orders.

First of all, Standing Order No 50(1) states that the Member shall confine his observations to the subject under discussion and may not introduce matters irrelevant thereto.

The main subject matters under discussion are the conduct of Mr Pritam Singh and his suitability to continue as the Leader of the Opposition. Hon Members are reminded that they should confine their observations to the subject matter of the Motion and not to shift the debate to other unrelated incidents or political issues.

Furthermore, as this Motion is about the conduct of Mr Pritam Singh and other persons named in the Motion, and only to such extent, Members should refrain from raising and discussing the conduct of other Members as it is not directly relevant to the Motion. If any Member wishes to widen the debate to discuss general political matters or party issues or the conduct of another Member, he can and he should do so by filing a separate Motion for debate by the House.

Secondly, Parliament is not re-litigating the case. While reference can be made to the judgment of the Court to set the context for the debate on today's Motion, the intent of this Motion is not to reopen the case, to dispute the findings of the Court or to question its decisions or to discuss the conduct of the trial.

Hon Members are to abide by the rules and other provisions of the Standing Orders. I will disallow any remarks which infringe the rules. Members are urged to exercise judgement in their speeches and clarifications and to be prepared to substantiate any factual point that they make.

Deputy Leader.

Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Minister Indranee's speeches for this Motion?

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

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

[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, question put and agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Resolved, "That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Minister Indranee's speech". – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad] (proc text)]

[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]

Leader.

Mr Speaker, I wish to move the Motion standing in my name in today's Order Paper.

Mr Speaker, we are here today because a lie was told in this Chamber four and a half years ago. That lie led to another, and another, and yet another, and then to an inquiry by the Committee of Privileges (COP) where more lies were told – this time, under oath. This resulted in a referral to the Public Prosecutor (PP) and eventually to charges in Court for offences under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962 (or PPIPA).

Last month, on 4 December 2025, the High Court upheld Mr Pritam Singh's conviction by the District Court on two counts of lying before the COP. The District Court also found that Mr Singh had guided Ms Raeesah Khan to maintain her lie to Parliament, confirming the COP's findings.

Now, the matter has come full circle back to Parliament.

Mr Speaker, this is a serious matter. The misconduct in question is not trivial. It involves multiple lies to different persons at different times, guiding a junior Member of Parliament (MP) to do the wrong thing and a failure of leadership.

In Singapore's Parliamentary democracy, honesty and integrity are not abstract ideals. They are not optional virtues. They are the foundation of public trust.

The authority of this House does not rest on law alone. It rests on the confidence and trust that Singaporeans have in Parliament – in its processes and its Members. This confidence and trust can be lost. This is why Parliament must insist that its Members always speak truthfully and act with integrity, even when it is politically inconvenient to do so.

When an MP lies to Parliament or before its committees, it is not just a personal lapse or a tactical misjudgement. It strikes at the trust Singaporeans place in us as well as the solemn duty we owe to the people we serve. It undermines the high standards of integrity and incorruptibility which make the Singaporean system work and for which Singapore is known.

That is why I have brought this Motion before Parliament today.

The Motion asks the House to:

1. Affirm that honesty and integrity are fundamental pillars of Singapore's parliamentary and political system;

2. Note the findings of the High Court and the COP;

3. Express regret at Mr Singh's conduct, which was dishonourable and unbecoming of a Member of Parliament;

4. Consider that such conduct renders him unsuitable to continue to hold the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, a Parliamentary leadership position with important responsibilities, duties and privileges, and that his continuation in this role would undermine the standing of Parliament and public confidence in the integrity of Singapore's political system;

5. Note that the High Court's judgment and COP findings have implications for Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap which have to be considered separately; and

6. Call on all Members of Parliament to uphold our solemn duty to respect and abide by the law, act with integrity at all times and honour the trust placed in us by Singaporeans.

So, to be clear, and for avoidance of doubt, in the third limb of the Motion, the one that asks us to express regret, the House is not being asked to impose any penalties or sanctions on Mr Pritam Singh under the PPIPA. What is being asked is for this House to express a view of his conduct and, if the House agrees that such conduct is not acceptable, to express its regret at such conduct.

Also, the fourth limb of the Motion does not operate to remove the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition is designated by the Prime Minister and the decision whether Mr Singh should continue with that designation rests with the Prime Minister, not Parliament. However, Members are entitled to and, I would argue, have an obligation to express a view on Mr Singh's suitability to continue in that role. It will then be for the Prime Minister to decide what to do after that.

The fifth limb asks the House to note that the Court judgments have implications for Ms Lim and Mr Faisal, as I will explain in my speech. However, as the extent and degree of their conduct differ from Mr Singh's, the fifth limb proposes that their matters be considered separately on another occasion.

Mr Speaker, let me briefly set out the facts.

On 3 August 2021, Ms Raeesah Khan, then a Workers' Party (WP) MP, spoke during the WP Motion titled "Empowering Women". She alleged that three years earlier, she had accompanied a sexual assault survivor to make a police report on a rape committed against the survivor. She claimed to have witnessed the survivor come out crying and alleged that the police officer commented about the survivor's dressing and the fact that she had been drinking.

Ms Khan repeated this allegation at a later Sitting of Parliament on 4 October 2021. However, on 1 November 2021, she admitted to Parliament that she had lied and had not in fact accompanied a survivor to the police station. I will refer to this lie as the "Untruth" as the Court did.

Following Ms Khan's admission, I raised a complaint against her under Standing Order 100(7)(b) for breach of privilege. The complaint was referred to the COP, which was convened and began its inquiry on 29 November 2021. Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal – then the three senior-most leaders in the WP – gave evidence before the COP to assist in its investigations into the circumstances that led to Ms Khan's Untruth.

Ms Khan told the inquiry that the three WP leaders had advised her to continue with the Untruth after she first uttered it in Parliament on 3 August 2021. However, the three WP leaders denied this before the COP. The COP found each of the three to have lied under oath.

On 15 February 2022, Parliament debated and adopted the COP's Report. This House fined Ms Khan and resolved to refer Mr Singh to the PP to be investigated for lying to the COP. Mr Singh was later charged in Court on 19 March 2024 for lying to a Parliamentary committee, which is an offence under the PPIPA. Mr Faisal was referred to the PP for refusing to answer the COP's questions. For this, he was subsequently issued a Police Advisory.

Parliament postponed making a decision on: Mr Singh's, Ms Lim's and Mr Faisal's involvement in guiding Ms Khan to continue with the Untruth; and Ms Lim's and Mr Faisal's lying to the COP; pending the outcome of Mr Singh's case. Mr Singh's court case has recently concluded. Parliament now has to decide what to do in the light of the Courts' findings. And that is the reason for the Motion today.

Mr Speaker, before I go into the Courts' findings, I should mention that normally under the Standing Orders, they do not allow reflecting upon the character and conduct of an MP or making a charge of a personal character, but there are exceptions. This is when it pertains to his conduct in his capacity as an MP and if there is a substantive Motion on the matter. In this case, we do have a substantive Motion, the terms of which require us to consider the character and conduct of Mr Singh, and at times Ms Lim and Mr Faisal, in light of the High Court judgment and the COP Report, and to make certain decisions after doing so. It is therefore necessary for us not to skirt around the conduct with euphemisms but to name it squarely, so that everyone understands the issues clearly and can debate them properly.

Let me now deal with the Court judgments. In February 2025, the District Court convicted Mr Singh for lying before the COP. He appealed his conviction. Last month, the High Court dismissed Mr Singh's appeal and upheld the findings of guilt on his charges. Mr Singh has stated that he accepts the High Court's judgment "fully and without reservation".

The Court findings established many disturbing facts about Mr Singh's conduct.

First, in relation to Ms Khan's Untruth, Mr Singh told her to "take it to the grave", essentially instructing her to hide the Untruth.

Second, he later guided her to continue with the Untruth.

Third, he recommended to the WP Central Executive Committee (CEC) that Ms Khan be expelled from WP if she did not resign, but crucially failed to disclose to the CEC his own prior knowledge of Ms Khan's Untruth and his own involvement guiding her to continue with the Untruth.

Fourth, he lied to Singaporeans when he publicly rejected Ms Khan's accounts of the matter, and accused her of lying.

Fifth, he lied twice to the COP about his own involvement in guiding Ms Khan to maintain her Untruth. Once when he denied telling Ms Khan to take the Untruth to the grave, and again, when he claimed that he had wanted Ms Khan to clarify the Untruth.

And sixth, Mr Singh stuck to these untruths when giving evidence at trial. The Court disbelieved and rejected his evidence. That means he lied to the Courts too.

In gist, this was not a single lapse. Mr Singh not only lied, but lied repeatedly – to the COP, to the public and to the Courts, doubling down each time. He was also not upfront with his own party.

Mr Speaker, allow me to set out salient facts from the Court judgments which substantiate these points.

The 8 August 2021 meeting. Taking the Untruth to the grave. On 7 August 2021, a few days after Ms Khan told the Untruth in Parliament, she confessed this to Mr Singh over the phone. The next day, she met him, along with Ms Lim and Mr Faisal. Ms Khan told them about the Untruth as well.

At this meeting, Mr Singh told Ms Khan to take the Untruth to the grave. This was the Courts' finding. There is contemporaneous evidence showing this. In particular, Ms Khan sent a WhatsApp message to two of her close WP colleagues immediately after the meeting. The message recorded that the three WP leaders had "agreed that the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave". That is a quote.

The Courts also found that at this 8 August meeting, Ms Lim had said that "probably the issue won't come up again", and Mr Singh did not contradict her view. However, before the COP, Mr Singh vehemently denied Ms Khan's account that she had been asked to take the Untruth to the grave. He said, and I quote, "[This] would be highly inaccurate. It is a complete lie." The other two WP leaders denied it before the COP too.

All three claimed instead that they did not discuss with Ms Khan what should be done about the Untruth at this 8 August meeting. Mr Singh said that she had to speak to her parents first. Mr Singh continued to say this during his Court trial.

With the benefit of the Court judgments, we now know that it was in fact Mr Singh and the other two WP leaders who had lied about what was said at this meeting. The Court found that their attitude had been clear and simple: they believed that there was no need to tell the truth because they did not think that the matter would surface again – they thought it would be buried forever.

For the next two months until October 2021, Mr Singh did not discuss the Untruth with Ms Khan, nor do anything to get her to correct it. This was despite him actively monitoring her other Parliamentary work during this time.

The 3 October 2021 meeting. On 3 October 2021, one day before Parliament sat on 4 October 2021, Mr Singh visited Ms Khan at her home. He told Ms Khan he had a feeling that the issue of the Untruth might be raised the next day. He wanted to discuss what should be done if the topic came up.

The District Court found that during this meeting, Mr Singh guided Ms Khan to continue her Untruth in Parliament. This is consistent with the finding of the COP. So, when Mr Singh denied this before the COP and the Court, he was again lying.

The next day, when Minister Shanmugam asked Ms Khan for further details of her anecdote in Parliament, Ms Khan doubled down on the Untruth. Both Mr Singh and Ms Lim were present in the House. When Ms Khan reiterated the Untruth, they did nothing to correct her. They allowed Parliament to be misled again. Mr Faisal also learnt about the exchange in Parliament later that day.

The 11 October 2021 meeting with Mr Low Thia Khiang. The Police emailed Ms Khan on 7 October 2021, requesting to interview her to obtain more details for the investigation. She forwarded this email to Mr Singh and the other two WP leaders.

On 11 October 2021, Mr Singh and Ms Lim consulted Mr Low Thia Khiang, the WP's former Secretary-General, on what steps to take in relation to the Untruth. Even as they sought Mr Low's advice, they were not honest with him. Critically, they did not reveal that they had known about Ms Khan's Untruth since 8 August 2021. Mr Low said he only learned this two years later, in 2023.

At that point, Mr Singh and Ms Lim were also still hopeful that the Government might not discover the Untruth. Ms Lim told Mr Low that discovering the Untruth was not easy because "there are so many Police stations in Singapore". Again, Mr Singh did not disagree with her. It was Mr Low who impressed upon Mr Singh and Ms Lim that Ms Khan had to clarify the Untruth and apologise to Parliament, regardless of whether it might be discovered by the Government.

This was the turning point in the WP's response to the Untruth. Following this meeting with Mr Low, arrangements were finally made for Ms Khan to clarify the Untruth. She eventually did so via a personal statement in Parliament on 1 November 2021. In short, Mr Singh and the other two WP leaders hid the truth for months. They only decided to come clean after Mr Low, their former Secretary-General, advised them to do so.

The Disciplinary Panel (DP) proceedings and the press conference. What happened next was not edifying. The day after Ms Khan clarified the Untruth, the WP announced that it had formed a DP to look into her admissions in Parliament.

The DP comprised Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal – the very persons to whom she had confessed her Untruth in August 2021, from whom she had sought advice, who had agreed to guide her to take the truth to the grave, and – in the case of Mr Singh – who had said he would not judge her.

Well, he did proceed to sit in judgement upon her, personally.

In the course of the DP proceedings, when Ms Khan requested a second interview with the DP, Mr Singh replied: "Dear Raeesah – I hope you can see that it is precisely your character and behaviour that is under review here, in view of your actions in Parliament and your decision to stick to the untruthful anecdote when asked again in October".

On 30 November 2021, Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal recommended to the WP CEC that for lying to Parliament, Ms Khan should be expelled from the party within 24 hours if she did not resign. The WP CEC accepted their recommendation. Ms Khan resigned from the WP that same day.

What is most troubling about this episode is that Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal failed to declare to the WP CEC or their own party members, let alone the public, that all three of them had actually known about the Untruth since August 2021, and all three had been involved in guiding Ms Khan to maintain her Untruth. One does not need to be a lawyer or a Parliamentarian to know that this is improper and wrong, legally and morally.

As the District Court observed: "there would have been a real concern that the three WP leaders may not be seen to be able to act fairly or impartially when enquiring into Ms Khan's behaviour, as their own conduct in the affair would also come under scrutiny", and they had in fact acted "to conceal their involvement in guiding Ms Khan to maintain the Untruth since 8 August 2021".

Mr Singh claimed that this information was not provided because it was "irrelevant". Yet, on 2 December 2021, hours before the COP hearing was due to begin, Mr Singh held a press conference and admitted, for the very first time, that the three WP leaders had known of Ms Khan's Untruth shortly after she had said it on 3 August 2021.

Mr Singh described this timing as a pure, complete coincidence. This was unbelievable. And here is what the District Court found, and I quote:

"497. Notably, [Mr Singh] only publicly disclosed his own prior knowledge of the Untruth when holding a press conference on 2 December 2021, the very day that the COP was to hear evidence from Ms Loh [Pei Ying] and Ms Khan. Before this, even the WP CEC was kept in the dark.

498. [Mr Singh] only made his public disclosure after Ms Loh had told Mr Mike Lim to let [Mr Singh] know that no matter what happened [Ms Loh] would be going into the COP to tell the truth or what [she] knew of it and [she] wanted to give [Mr Singh] an opportunity to clarify or make a plan where he could put out the party's position or his position first.

499. In [the Court's] view, [Mr Singh's] action in holding the press conference on 2 December 2021 clearly suggested that he was trying to do damage control by pre-emptively disclosing his knowledge and involvement before it was publicly revealed by [Ms] Loh or Ms Khan."

When Mr Singh appeared before the COP, he continued to lie and to distance himself from Ms Khan's conduct. He denied making the statement about taking the Untruth to the grave – that was a lie. He said that he had wanted Ms Khan to tell the truth in October 2021 – that was another lie.

These were even graver than other lies, because he was giving them in evidence before a Parliament committee and he was speaking under oath. For wilfully giving these false answers, Mr Singh was charged and eventually convicted by the District Court. His appeal was dismissed.

Mr Speaker, I have set out the brief facts of the case. They are findings of the Courts and Mr Singh has said he accepts the Court's judgment fully and without reservation.

So, as we can see: Mr Singh guided Ms Khan, twice, to maintain her Untruth to Parliament; he then lied twice before the COP; he lied before the Court; he lied to the public; and he concealed material information from his own party.

Mr Speaker, there are simply too many lies – they pile up, one on top of another, each to cover up a previous lie. And that, is a problem as Mr Singh is also the Leader of the Opposition.

This case shows a failure of leadership on the part of Mr Singh.

First, if Mr Singh had told Ms Khan to come clean when she first confessed her Untruth to him in August 2021, the entire matter would have taken a very different course. Yes, it would have been inconvenient and uncomfortable to disclose the truth then. The WP had just won their second group representation constituency (GRC) in Sengkang in the 2020 General Election and Ms Khan was a member of WP's Sengkang team.

But the consequences would have been nowhere as grave as what followed Mr Singh's telling Ms Khan to take the Untruth "to the grave". It is precisely at such moments where leaders are tested, and where leadership matters. And we have seen the contrast between Mr Singh's approach and Mr Low Thia Khiang's leadership.

Second, there was a failure to take responsibility. After Ms Khan told the Untruth, she knew she was in trouble. She asked Mr Singh for advice, as her party leader and because she regarded him as her mentor. Mr Singh told her to hide the Untruth. He guided her to continue with the Untruth. Yet when the truth came to light, he did not admit his complicity. Instead, he disowned her actions and later sat in judgment of her conduct – while concealing his own role.

Third, Mr Singh refused to acknowledge the impact of the original Untruth on the Police. He said no wrong had been done to the Police by reason of the false claim and questioned the amount of work the Police had done to investigate the false claim. He dismissed the work the Police had to put in and the diversion of public resources with the comment that the Police is not a "broken-back organisation".

The Police had to comb through more than 1,400 sexual assault and related cases from 2018 to 2021 to investigate the false claims. This led to delays in handling other matters and cases. Mr Singh could easily have prevented all this by urging Ms Khan to tell the truth the moment she confessed to him.

Mr Speaker, some may ask: the Court has already imposed a fine. Is that not the end of the matter? Why must Parliament act?

Sir, the answer is that the Court has dealt with the criminal offences. We are not asking to impose further penalties for those offences or his other misconduct under PPIPA. But the matters in the Court judgment and the outstanding matters in the COP Report still affect Parliament and Parliament must take a view.

The Untruth, which gave rise to the offence, occurred in Parliament. The lies were told to a Committee of Parliament. The conduct and conviction of Mr Singh reflect directly on Parliament.

Parliament must decide whether such conduct is acceptable for an MP – and in this case the Leader of the Opposition.

Following the High Court decision, Mr Singh has not shown any remorse, accountability or acceptance of responsibility. Nor has the WP expressed its view on the matter. It has announced some proceedings that are still in progress, but its dilatory response contrasts sharply with its swift actions in previous cases.

In the case of Ms Khan, after she confessed her Untruth to Parliament on 1 November 2021, a DP was formed within 24 hours to look into her admission. Recommendations were made and accepted by the CEC within the month. In the case of Mr Leon Perera, after video evidence of his extra-marital affair emerged on 17 July 2023, Mr Singh met with him that same afternoon and the WP’s CEC met that same evening to discuss the matter. Two days later, on 19 July 2023, Mr Perera resigned. It was made known that had he not done so, he would have been expelled.

In contrast, in Mr Singh's own case, the High Court issued its decision on 4 December 2025. The WP responded that it was studying the verdict and grounds of decision.

I then issued two statements, on 17 and 22 December, saying that this matter would be raised in Parliament in January.

On 28 December 2025, the WP confirmed that some of its members had requested for a Special Cadre Members' Conference (CMC). On 3 January 2026, one whole month after the High Court judgment, the WP announced that a DP would be formed to determine if Mr Singh had contravened the party constitution. The DP would conclude within three months and the Special CMC would only be convened after the DP completed its work.

It is strange that the WP could act so decisively in the cases of Ms Khan and Mr Perera – where there were no Court findings on their conduct. Yet now, in a far graver case of dishonesty and lying, it needs four months to figure out the import of the Court's clear judgment of Mr Singh.

Speaker.

Ms Lim, do you want to raise a Point of Order?

Yes. Earlier, you had advised all Members to stick to the matters involved in the resolutions. I wonder, what the Leader has been saying, what has it got to do with the resolutions?

First, I want to say that indeed, I had made those remarks. And I had said that we are not questioning the decisions of the Court, but with respect to setting out the context, those can be cited.

Sir, my point is that the Leader is now touching on what the WP is doing to follow up on the judgment. So, I wonder what has that got to do with the resolutions?

Leader.

I thank Ms Lim for her clarification. My point is timing. And the point is what I was getting to, which is that, while I understand that this is what the WP is doing, Parliament cannot wait on the WP nor should our view depend on the WP's internal deliberations —

Point of Order.

Mr Tiong.

Mr Speaker, I rise on the Point of Order under Standing Order 50(6).

The Leader has stated that Mr Singh has lied to the Courts and lied to Singaporeans. The Court conviction was specifically for lying to the COP under oath, no perjury charge was brought. These characterisations impute improper motives beyond the Court's actual findings. I ask that the Leader confine her remarks to what the Court actually found.

Leader.

Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Tiong for his clarification. Maybe I should explain to him step by step.

If a statement is made to the Court and the Court finds that that is not true or rejects it, it must follow, as a matter of logic, that what was told to the Court, is not the truth. The Court can decide whether or not it wishes to proceed with perjury, but the Court does not have to do so.

The point I am making is that: what was told to the Court, if untrue, it must follow that it is a lie. It is just a matter of logic.

If I may be permitted to continue, Mr Speaker.

As I was saying, Parliament cannot wait on the WP nor should our view depend on the WP's internal deliberations, or on whether Mr Singh's actions contravene the WP constitution. This House must decide on the matter without unnecessary delay, as it reflects on the standing and integrity of Parliament.

Sir, I have also moved that Parliament considers that Mr Singh's conviction and conduct render him unsuitable to continue as the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Singh was first designated the Leader of the Opposition by then Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong after the 2020 General Election. After the 2025 General Election, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong again designated Mr Singh as the Leader of the Opposition.

The office of the Leader of the Opposition was formally established in 2020 to recognise Singaporeans' strong desire for a greater diversity of views in our politics and to enable our political system to evolve in a way that maintains our sense of national purpose. That objective remains valid.

Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is not an ordinary MP. He has greater responsibilities and privileges than other backbenchers. To recap, the duties of the Leader of the Opposition include leading the Opposition in presenting alternative views in Parliamentary debates on policies, Bills and Motions; scrutinising the Government's positions and actions in Parliament; and nominating opposition Members for appointment to Select Committees.

In addition, the Leader of the Opposition may be asked to take on other duties, such as attending official state functions, and taking part in visits and meetings alongside members of the Government and the Public Service. When he does so, he goes as a representative of Parliament.

The Leader of the Opposition also receives specific privileges. He will, from time to time, receive confidential briefings by the Government on important national issues, such as security and external relations, especially during a national crisis or emergency. In debates, he gets the right of first response and more time for his speeches, equal to a Minister's speech time. He is provided an office in Parliament; additional staff support and resources and double the allowance of an elected MP.

Clearly, the Leader of the Opposition position carries important duties and privileges. Whoever holds this designation must be respected and trusted as a competent representative of the people. When the Office of the Leader of the Opposition was first introduced, there were high hopes for the role and how it would enhance the functioning and standing of Parliament. But now Mr Singh has done all the things that I have set out and been convicted in Court for lying to a Committee of Parliament.

Under these circumstances, the conclusion is clear and beyond doubt: Mr Singh's conduct was dishonourable and unbecoming of an MP; and he has fallen short of the requirements and standards expected of the Leader of the Opposition.

If Members agree with this conclusion, they should vote in favour of the Motion. If they disagree and wish to vote against, they should justify to this House and to Singaporeans why Singapore should accept such lowered standards of honesty and integrity from their political leaders.

The WP MPs have often made speeches in this House about the importance of accountability. They have declared it their mission to hold the Government to account. The question is whether they believe that their own members – including their leader – should also be held to account for doing something wrong, especially after the Court has convicted them of a crime.

The WP and Mr Singh himself have expressed strong views against lying and dishonesty. After Ms Khan lied to Parliament and after the cover-up failed, Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal recommended to the WP CEC that she be expelled from the party if she did not resign. The WP CEC accepted the recommendation.

When Mr Leon Perera was discovered to have lied to the WP leadership about his extramarital affair, Mr Singh said, "The Constitution of the Workers' Party requires candidates to be honest and frank in their dealings with the party and the people of Singapore… Leon's conduct and not being truthful when asked by the party leadership about the allegation fell short of the standards expected of WP MPs. This is unacceptable. Had he not offered his resignation, I would have recommended to the CEC that he be expelled from the party."

Notably, swift justice was meted out just for lying to the WP leadership. Ms Khan and Mr Perera had not lied to a Committee of Parliament or under oath; and Mr Perera had not been charged for a crime, let alone found guilty by the Court.

I am sure the WP will agree with me that the same standards and rigour must apply, whether to backbenchers or party leaders.

Of course, the same standards apply also to People's Action Party (PAP) MPs. If a PAP MP or Political Office Holder is found guilty of lying or dishonesty, nobody doubts that serious consequences will follow. It would be untenable for them to continue as if nothing happened. In serious cases, they will have to relinquish their positions.

Members may recall that in 1999, PAP MP Choo Wee Khiang was charged for cheating. He resigned before pleading guilty. In 2024, Mr S Iswaran resigned as soon as he was charged, even before conviction. Mr Tan Chuan-Jin resigned on account of his personal conduct, even though there was no criminal offence.

In all of these cases, the MPs resigned their seats as matter of party discipline, and to express remorse and accountability, but most of all to maintain the high standards expected of those in public office. These standards underpin our system of Government and are crucial to providing Singaporeans with the quality of leaders and Government that they deserve.

Mr Speaker, this matter goes beyond party politics. Honesty and integrity are non-negotiable. They form the foundation of our political system and of good governance in Singapore. If Parliament allows these standards to slip, distrust will gradually take root, and the public confidence in our institutions will be eroded, inevitably and irreversibly. The damage would be profound and exceedingly difficult to recover from.

By supporting this Motion, Members will show that this generation of MPs are determined never to allow that to happen and that we will continue to uphold and enforce the rigorous standards that have served Singapore well and will continue to do so for many years to come.

I therefore ask all Members to support the Motion. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

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

Point of Order.