Hansard, Wednesday, 4 February 2026

1 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health in light of the US nutrition policy shift towards whole foods and limiting processed ingredients (a) whether the Ministry is assessing its relevance to Singapore’s dietary guidelines and chronic disease management; and (b) what impact, if any, will this have on current health policies.

Sir, this question has been answered in the written answer to Question No 19 at the Parliament Sitting on 3 February 2026.

2 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry will review the administrative and reporting framework for deputies appointed under the Mental Capacity Act, with a view to simplifying procedures and easing the compliance burden, while maintaining safeguards for the persons they serve.

he Minister for Social and Family Development): Mr Speaker, under the Mental Capacity Act, Court-appointed deputies must submit an annual report to the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG). This report is an important safeguard against potential abuse as it requires deputies to set out how they have discharged their responsibilities under the Court order, which includes accounting for decisions made on behalf of the mentally incapacitated persons and how they have managed such persons’ property and affairs.

The Ministry for Social and Family Development (MSF) has been working to reduce the burden for deputies, including online submission of reports and a built-in finance tracker. OPG organises monthly workshops to guide deputies to fulfil responsibilities and requirements for the annual reports. And for deputies who require help with filing, OPG also provides personalised support.

Ms Phua.

I thank the Minister of State for his response. On the ground, we have heard recurring feedback from families and these are not just families with persons with disabilities, but also with seniors who, for some reason, have lost some of their capacities. My Parliamentary Question arises from all these recurring feedback.

There were two sets of issues normally cited. Despite what the Minister of State mentioned that OPG has been doing. The first set is around the difficulties when they apply for deputyship. Usually, many of these families have limited access to knowledge and guidance, they do not even know where to go. Despite a simplified process, it is actually not so simple. Most applicants, especially those who are not so educated or not so proficient in English, do require hands-on guidance. And without it, the process is quite daunting. Also, for deputyship, unlike the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA), it is more costly and administratively burdensome as well.

There are also difficulties after deputyship orders are made. Like the Minister of State mentioned, the annual report; it is not so easy for people to even fill up. Some of my volunteers, including lawyers who help them, find it is not so straightforward for those post deputyship burdens —

Ms Phua, do you want to ask your supplementary question?

Yes. Also, their banking constraints as well. The banks are not very consistent in supporting these families.

So, my supplementary question would be this: would MSF take a lead in setting up a small, maybe inter-agency work group, even including volunteers, to look into these problems that are really faced by the deputies who are family members and try to coordinate the efforts to assist them. And then, make the information available for them.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for her supplementary question. I believe the Member can appreciate that the scope of responsibility required of a deputy is much broader. The Member made comparisons to the LPA process. Indeed, for deputies, they do have to exercise quite a lot more responsibilities and these can vary quite widely depending on what the Court decides upon.

Having said so, I acknowledge the comments and feedback from the Member. We thank the Member for the feedback. We welcome that. We regularly and continuously engage key stakeholders, including deputies and prospective deputies, as well as members of the public. We will continuously review how we can improve both the application process and the reporting process, as well as the overall user experience in going through the deputyship journey.

Mr Patrick Tay.

To add on to the Member's point: the resources required to do a deputyship is a couple of thousand dollars, and time and effort. It is especially problematic when it comes to having to deal with amounts of those who have lost mental capacity and the amounts may not be a lot of money, but you need it for sustenance or maybe to settle some debts or some payments, particularly of caregivers, relatives, friends, even neighbours.

Is there a way to set some threshold where we allow maybe a statutory declaration or something else, rather than a full deputyship, to be able to handle this? Because now, increasingly, you have cases of dementia. We may be doing a lot of efforts at LPAs, but there are those who fall outside of it. This is a suggestion for MSF to look at, but can we set some thresholds with banks and financial institutions where we are able to withdraw those monies to pay for simple bills, rather than be in debt which then rolls on?

Mr Speaker, we note the Member's suggestion. We will take a look at it.

3 Ms Gho Sze Kee asked the Minister for Education (a) whether Direct School Admission (DSA) offers reduce the Secondary 1 quota available for students from non-affiliated schools; and (b) whether there have been cases where a secondary school had no remaining slots for students from non-affiliated schools after DSA and affiliation admissions.

Since the 2019 Secondary 1 Posting Exercise, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has required affiliated secondary schools to reserve at least 20% of places of their Secondary 1 cohort for non-affiliated students. This requirement is applied to each posting group, so that our schools remain open to students of different backgrounds. Overall, over the past five years, non-affiliated students have comprised about half of the Secondary 1 cohort of affiliated secondary schools.

The total number of Secondary 1 places offered in each school is the sum of planned places offered under the Secondary 1 Posting Exercise and the Direct School Admission (DSA) exercise. While the DSA admissions does not reduce the number of Secondary 1 places available in a school, non-affiliated students admitted via the DSA exercise will be considered as taking up reserved places for non-affiliated students.

In the past five years, there have been only two instances where an affiliated secondary school filled all the reserved places for non-affiliated students in one posting group via DSA, and no non-affiliated students were posted for that posting group during the Secondary 1 Posting Exercise. However, non-affiliated students in the other two posting groups were still admitted via the Secondary 1 Posting Exercise.

Ms Gho.

Mr Speaker, I think it would be very helpful if schools were to publish the number of DSA offers made this year and the number of affiliated students admitted in the previous year, and also, the incoming cohort size. With these three metrics, I think it would allow parents and students to make better informed choices when deciding which school the students should apply for, for the Secondary 1 admission exercise. Will MOE consider this suggestion?

Mr Speaker, I thank Ms Gho for her suggestion. We will consider it. Perhaps, an opportunity to explain that in deciding whether to publish such details, we would have to consider whether the information would help parents make an informed decision. In other words, does the historical data have low variance and help to predict what will happen next? Or it has a high variance in which case it is not so helpful for the family to make the decision this year.

But we will certainly study her suggestion.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Sir, on the matter of affiliation, I wonder if the Senior Minister of State will be willing to share if MOE provides guidelines or imposes stipulations on how wide the differential between an affiliated and non-affiliated student may be. I ask this because I understand the principle behind wanting to encourage affiliated students to attend their given secondary school, but I have seen reports that this difference can be quite wide – as much as 10 points within the given posting group – which seems to undermine this principle of meritocracy.

Sir, I thank Prof Lim for the question. I do not have the data with me. This Parliamentary Question (PQ) that was filed by Ms Gho was about the DSA exercise. I would suggest that he file a PQ on the issue of the affiliation and non-affiliation data.

4 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how the new Safety Assurance for Food Establishment (SAFE) framework that will be implemented from 19 January 2026 is expected to address public health risks more effectively; and (b) what metrics does the Government plan to use in order to evaluate this.

5 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how will transparency and authenticity of the food safety grading under the new Safety Assurance for Food Establishment (SAFE) framework be assured, given that physical decals will be replaced by digital disclosures from 19 January 2026 onwards; and (b) how will consumers who are less digitally savvy still be able to easily access the food safety grading information.

6 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment regarding the new Safety Assurance for Food Establishments (SAFE) framework (a) whether the shift to self-regulation and reduction in regular inspections is being driven by manpower constraints; (b) what is the revised inspection frequency; and (c) whether relying on track records risk making the system reactive, where food safety standards may slip unnoticed until a major lapse occurs.

7 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment with the new food grading system announced on 7 January 2026 (a) how will small businesses with limited resources be assisted to meet the additional requirements; and (b) what is the transition duration as well as the resources required by SFA to complete inspections under the new grading system.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take oral Question Nos 4, 5, 6 and 7 in today's Order Paper, together?

Please proceed.

Mr Speaker, these four Parliamentary Questions (PQs) relate to the Safety Assurance for Food Establishments (SAFE) framework. The SAFE framework is a food safety grading system that communicates food establishments’ food safety performance more clearly to consumers, so that they can make informed choices. It is part of the Singapore Food Agency's (SFA’s) science- and risk-based food safety regime, which aims to keep the number of foodborne illness cases related to foodborne outbreaks low. It will be implemented in two phases, with the first phase implemented on 19 January 2026.

Under the SAFE framework, food establishments fall under two categories, based on their level of food processing or preparation. Category 1 food establishments are those with a larger scale of food processing or preparation, such as food manufacturers, caterers, central kitchens and large restaurants. The majority of food establishments such as hawker stalls, small restaurants and bakeries fall under Category 2. These have a smaller scale of food processing or preparation.

Food establishments are graded "A", "B" or "C" based on their food safety track record from SFA’s inspections. They do not have to fulfil any additional requirements, unless they are Category 1 food establishments that wish to attain Grade A. Such establishments will need to implement a Food Safety Management System (FSMS) and appoint an Advanced Food Hygiene Officer (AFHO) to provide better food safety assurance to consumers.

Those that commit a major food safety lapse and are convicted in court or suspended after accumulating 12 demerit points from food safety lapses will be downgraded to Grade C, regardless of their existing grade. Downgraded establishments will need to build up and maintain good food safety track records, before they can move back to a higher grade.

Compared with the annual snapshot assessment under the previous grading regime, the one that we are all very familiar with, the new SAFE framework considers a food establishment’s year-round food safety track record from its history of inspections, including any involvement in food-borne incidents. This encourages food establishments to consistently maintain good food safety practices. SFA will continue to conduct regular inspections of all food establishments under its targeted, data-driven regime. Food establishments with a larger scale of food processing or preparation, as well as those with Grade C, will be inspected more frequently.

For small businesses in Category 1 that wish to implement the additional requirements and maintain their Grade A status, government support is available. Individuals who apply for the AFHO training course will receive SkillsFuture Singapore subsidies of up to 70%. Food businesses can send existing staff to be trained. So, there is no need to hire additional staff, you can use existing staff to do this. As for FSMS implementation, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) can receive up to 50% support under EnterpriseSG's Enterprise Development Grant to implement and certify their FSMS. This grant specifically supports local SMEs for their first-time certification and adoption of standards, and covers qualifying project costs such as consultancy and certification fees for FSMS standards.

Ms Nadia Samdin also asked about how the transparency and authenticity of the SAFE grades can be assured with the shift away from physical decals and how less digitally savvy consumers will be able to access information on SAFE grades. Under the previous system, physical decals were updated annually, once a year, following inspections and they may not follow real-time changes. By scanning the QR code on a food establishment’s licence, consumers can be assured of the most up-to-date, real-time and accurate information on the food establishment’s grade and track records. This mitigates the risk of outdated decals being displayed at the premises. Under the Environmental Public Health Act, food establishments must display their licence at a conspicuous and accessible position at their premises.

Consumers who are less digitally savvy or without smart devices can request the grade from the stall operator or seek assistance from a fellow diner with a smart device. To better support such consumers, SFA has also partnered with the Infocomm Media Development Authority on the Seniors Go Digital programme to teach seniors on how to use their phone cameras to scan the SAFE QR codes at food establishments.

Ms Nadia Samdin.

Thank you, Speaker, and thank you to the Senior Minister of State as well. I have three follow-up supplementary questions.

The first is really on the last point about accessing the food safety grading. While I understand that the new regime will provide more up-to-date grading, I think there is also something about a physical decal making it front-and-centre for consumers to be able to consider. So, will the Ministry consider including a physical decal requirement to be updated as and when the grade may change?

My second one is, I had asked about the measurement of the effectiveness of this change in regime. Could the Ministry elaborate whether there will be any outcome-based indicators beyond inspection performance? For example, outbreak severity or recurrence rates that will be checked alongside these compliance indicators?

My third and final one is, while SAFE strengthens assurance at the food establishment level, food safety risks can also originate earlier on in the chain – from import to processing to storage and distribution. I hope to understand how SAFE fits within the broader food safety and public health architecture, if possible.

I thank the Member for her questions. For the first one, for now, I think the critical point is to get the information out in real time. The regime has changed significantly. With the risk-based regime, we are able to now do inspections more frequently for outlets that are found to be of higher risk or who perform poorly. The QR code enables us to change the grading as and when one performs poorly or one has improved performance, rather than waiting once a year.

But having said that, when you scan the QR code, it is part of the licence that you have to show or display. So, there is a display of the licence and the QR code. A quick show and you can actually see whether it is a Grade A, B or C. So, it is quite clear to whoever who needs to use it.

Having said that, nothing stops the outlet from also printing it themselves and pasting it up. But we will not make it compulsory or mandatory for now, but we will see how this goes and we hope that we can educate more to use the new format.

The Member's second question on the effectiveness, we will look into this. This is one way in which we also want to measure effectiveness of the system as well. But as it has just been launched and rolled out, give us a bit of time to assess the performance, how the ratings change. Because we do not have enough data now to see how it changes in the new system, so, give us a bit of time.

Certainly, one way in which we hope to see is to see improved performances over time. As food and beverage (F&B) outlets find that they are being monitored more in real time, they are more encouraged to keep performance up and keep food safety at a high standard.

The third question on whether we are able to trace back, down to the food source. I think we have to take a very risk-based approach. Firstly, we have about 45,000 licensees under this regime, both Category 1 and Category 2; and therefore, it is not possible to track every single one. But certainly, when there is an outbreak or when we think that there is a risk to the system, like I said, we do take a very risk-based approach especially for those who have large volume or large networks, or those have outbreaks or poor performance, and that is where we have to then assess the sources.

As part of the FSMS requirement, we will then also take a look at their records that they have to do for safekeeping. But I would also encourage F&B operators and all those licensees to really trace and track, and keep up the standards with the new grading system.

Mr Yip Hon Weng.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. The new framework is called SAFE. But for many Singaporeans, the real concern is whether it remains safe in practice or becomes unsafe when lapses go unnoticed. A heavy reliance on past track record makes oversight reactive rather than preventive.

Could the Senior Minister of State explain what early warning indicators SFA uses to detect deteriorating food safety standards before a serious lapse occurs and how these safeguards protect consumers upstream rather than after harm has been done? And secondly, in addition, what independent verification or audit measurements are in place to ensure that self-reported compliance accurately reflects on-ground practice?

I thank the Member for his questions. As I shared, our inspection regime adopts a targeted and data-driven approach. This enables us to also track proactively, which basically means, those under the Category 1, for example, larger kitchens, those with poor track records, they will be inspected more proactively. And of course, those who are doing better, we can do less. And therefore, as an overall, we will not have any less inspection than we have today.

What we want to do is to be more proactive, take a risk-based approach. With the gradings being monitored in real time, I think that encourages a lot of operators to monitor and ensure that they keep up their safety standards, because they are monitored in real time and whenever they have downgrades, I think there is impact.

Government procurement is one good example in which there is a minimum of Grade B in the criteria to be procured under Government contracts. So, in some contracts in some Ministries, I also am aware that if the gradings change, they will also review the contracting requirements, the contracting conditions. These are ways in which the Government also sets the standard to ensure and keep our food providers and caterers on their toes.

To the Member's second question on audits, for Category 1 and Category 2 classification as an example, there is no self declaration required. Technically, the data is based on licensee. So, in terms of audit, most of the data is already with us and we already assure them by licensing. And for grading, I think that comes as part of SFA's inspections. So, when it comes to audits as example, as part of inspections, we will inspect various things, whether it is your sources, whether your AFHO certifications are in place, whether you have a pest-free environment, and so forth. These are things in which our officers will look for which will go into your grading and risk profiling. So, there is data analytics involved, in short, and we will take a risk-based approach.

Last supplementary question. Ms Poh Li San.

Thank you, Speaker and the Senior Minister of State. My supplementary question pertains to those establishments with poor performance, especially now that the decal is not being displayed. These establishments with poor performance would likely expect more frequent inspections and that means there will be disproportionately more resources on SFA's side to keep inspecting these few outlets. In that case, if they consistently do not perform, would SFA consider a safety time-out for these food establishments to protect the interest of consumers, especially if the decal is not even displayed and most people would not take the trouble to check, so how would they know that these are the frequent ones that do not improve?

I thank the Member for her question. It is certainly a valid concern. For SFA, we have a Point Demerit System. So, the moment that triggers, you will face suspension and therefore, this safeguards public safety, the consumer safety. Food safety and hygiene is top priority and top of mind for us. In the case of court conviction as well, suspensions will kick in as well.

So, rest assured that there are measures under our food safety regulations and the Food Safety and Security Act to ensure that we maintain high food standards here in Singapore and for all our consumers.

8 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Ministry has data on how many disputes relating to health insurance claims were filed with MAS or the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (FIDReC) in each of the past three years; (b) what proportion of such disputes were resolved in favour of policyholders; and (c) whether there has been an increase in disputes involving claim rejections, exclusions or post-treatment coverage.

Sir, I refer the Member to the Monetary Authority of Singapore's (MAS') response to Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Mr Ng Shi Xuan for the Parliament Sitting on 4 November 2025.

Over the same three-year period of between 2022 and 2024, the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (FIDReC) completed an average of 246 annual mediation and adjudication claims related to disputes on insurance claim liability and amounts awarded. Of these, an average of 95 were health insurance claims. Independent assessors ruled in favour of the policyholders in 4% of the health insurance claims.

Dr Hamid Razak.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for the reply. Given the very low percentage of adjudicated claims being in favour of the policyholders, has the Minister of State assessed why this is the case? For example, is this due to clearer policy terms or perhaps there are structural disadvantages that policyholders face? Because there has been ground feedback from healthcare providers that policyholders face delays or rejections, even at the pre-authorisation stage or even post-treatment, due to retrospective interpretations of policy terms.

So, I would like to ask if MAS has safeguards in place to ensure that insurance companies adjudicate claims transparently, consistently and do not disadvantage policyholders, especially when there are clear clinical indications for treatment.

Sir, I thank Dr Hamid Razak for his questions regarding the safeguards for consumers where they potentially face so-called unreasonable rejections of claims and pre-authorisation.

The onus is on the insurers themselves to demonstrate that the non-disclosure of the health condition to a question asked in the application form is material to the underwriting outcome before they reject a claim for non-disclosure. And both MOH and MAS expect insurers to process these claims fairly, according to the policy terms. MAS will take action against insurers who fail to do so.

Consumers who, nonetheless, believe that their claims have been unfairly rejected, should, first, contact their insurers who are required to handle these complaints independently, effectively and promptly. If a satisfactory resolution cannot be reached, consumers may file for mediation and adjudication at FIDReC, which offers independent, partial and low-cost dispute resolution services.

But I thought it is also important to put that 4% into context and take a look at the overall denominator. If you look at the numbers in perspective, every year, insurers naturally process and pay out claims in large numbers, large volumes. The numbers of disputes and complaints that eventually end up in FIDReC or MAS, respectively, represent less than 0.01% of all insurance claims. So, if we think about this one out of every 10,000 claims end up as disputes or complaints, which FIDReC or MAS then addresses. But the vast majority, 9,999 of these 10,000 are processed and they are paid out.

This indicates that for the vast majority of cases, the process works and most people settle their claims without needing any third-party help. But when a case does go into adjudication, as in that 4%, it is usually because it is complex or difficult. Think about our Meet-the-People Session cases, when they come to us, it is already quite complex.

But these cases fall into two broad categories, which I thought is important to share with the Member. First is on policy terms. If the adjudicator found that the insurer followed the specific terms and exclusions of the policy, that is one case; and even as the policyholder may disagree with the result. Second is when there is an event of a non-disclosure. And this happens when the policyholder leaves out certain medical history that he thought was not important at the start but actually was.

For example, to make it concrete, a person might not mention that he or she has a stomach condition when they apply for an insurance policy, and that if they later try to claim for a stomach-related issue, the adjudicator may rule that the insurer was right to exclude it because the information should have been shared from the start.

But while there is only a small number, which the Member mentioned, 4%, that result in an award for policyholder, I wanted to share with the House that there is a silver lining. Because we are seeing that the total number of cases needing adjudication has been dropping over the last few years. This indicates that maybe the insurers and consumers are getting better at speaking to one another and resolving issues early through mediation and negotiation, rather than the alternative of letting things escalate.

But behind every statistic is a person. And when a claim is rejected, it can be distressing. So, we have designed our system to address these issues to ensure fairness.

First, MAS expects insurers to pay legitimate claims promptly. If an insurer falls short of this, MAS will step in and can require them to review the earlier decision or to pay back the consumer. Second, if you cannot agree with your insurer, FIDReC is there. It is independent, impartial and low cost. And over 85% of their cases are resolved through mediation or adjudication, and it remains a very effective channel for Singaporeans.

9 Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) how programmes such as the Sport Excellence Potential (spexPotential) account for sports where athletes peak later, including how long athletes can be supported before reaching senior representation; and (b) how the Ministry ensures such athletes are not disadvantaged by early progression benchmarks.

Sir, in high performance sports, every sport, and for that matter, every individual, is different, including the ages at which athletes peak their performance, and therefore, at what age and for how long they must be supported.

Because our aim is to make sure every athlete fulfils their fullest sporting potential, Sport Singapore’s High Performance Sport Institute (HPSI) designs our support for athletes based on their current performance and assessed potential, rather than solely age. And we do not place a limit on how long athletes can be supported as long as they meet performance and potential criteria.

Our Sport Excellence (spex) framework provides comprehensive support for athletes across different stages of their sporting journey. It seeks to retain athletes early in the developmental pathway and also, long enough for them to realise their aspirations and achieve their full potential.

The spexPotential programme, in particular, provides targeted financial and programmatic support to athletes with the potential to achieve gold medal success at the Southeast Asian Games (SEA Games). It bridges our athletes’ journey towards the spexScholarship programme and sporting success at the Asian and world levels.

The spexPotential programme also supports athletes based on their developmental stage of their sport’s high performance pathway and it applies to athletes of all ages.

The framework of spex programmes – spexScholarship, spexPotential and spexCarding – also allows us to calibrate the level of support during various stages of an athlete’s sporting career. This means athletes will be supported throughout their sporting journey, even if their performance fluctuates from time to time.

The spex framework also supports late bloomers or athletes who switch sports. For example, we would be familiar with Theresa Goh, our Paralympian swimmer. She is also a late bloomer for para shooting. She took up the sport recently and won a gold and a silver at the recent ASEAN Para Games. As a swimmer, she was supported by spexCarding from when she was 14 years old and was awarded the spexScholarship when she was 27 years old. Now as a shooter, she is supported by spexCarding at 38 years old.

Once again, our aim is really to help every athlete achieve their fullest sporting potential. To do so, we work very closely with our partners, especially the National Sports Associations (NSAs) to develop our athletes. Together, we establish multiple pathways to account for differences in athletes’ development pathways and the characteristics of each sport, so that we can really support all our athletes.

Assoc Prof Goh.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Acting Minister for his response. It is reassuring to know that within our sporting framework, that we are an inclusive system, not just in terms of athletes who are differently abled, but also across different ages as well.

I bring up this question, because at the recent SEA Games it was reported that one of the sprinters who won a gold medal was not on the spex programme, despite him having been a former SEA Games medalist, having also competed in the Asian Games and in the Commonwealth Games. And so, my understanding was that these performances, while exemplary and something that we celebrate, fell outside of the window for consideration in awarding the spexScholarships and the spex grants.

So, my question to the Acting Minister is whether the Ministry would consider extending the window for consideration of these spex grants, especially in relation to older athletes? And one reason for that is because as older athletes have different and more varied life circumstances. If you are talking about younger athletes, I think their life circumstances are more homogeneous – they go to school and they participate in sport. With older athletes, they work, they take care of family, they have a variety of responsibilities and that takes them off the high performance track. And so, in considering a broader window for these spex grants, I was wondering if that is something the Ministry will consider, to better hang on to our athletes and support them throughout their careers.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. I believe I know the athlete in question and actually, he was supported by our spexCarding programme, and the spexGLOW programme, which allowed him to train full-time for a specific period of time.

I think to the Member's suggestion, for sure, because our focus is on helping every athlete achieve their fullest potential and therefore, we are definitely open to looking at the wider windows, different data points, but it is all with the view of how do we support our athletes better.

10 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether ECDA will introduce policy measures to increase transparency about preschools with safety violations and enforcement actions taken; (b) whether parents can access information about preschools' safety records and ECDA's regulatory actions; and (c) what safeguards exist to ensure parents are informed when serious safety violations occur at their children's preschools.

Mr Speaker, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) takes a serious view towards child safety issues. In cases of a regulatory breaches, ECDA will not hesitate to take firm action against errant operators. This may include revoking the preschool's licence where breaches are severe and systemic, or when the preschool can no longer provide services in a manner that is safe for children.

Under the Early Childhood Development Centres Act and Regulations, preschools are also required to notify parents immediately when there is a serious incident or illness that affects their child, and to also report such incidents to ECDA. ECDA has released statements regarding incidents of serious safety violations in preschools and the corresponding enforcement actions taken. However, ECDA does not generally name the preschools, to ensure that the identities of children involved are protected, especially in cases where gag orders are imposed in court proceedings.

We recognise that parents are concerned about their children's well-being and safety in preschools. Parents can make informed decisions about preschools by considering the centre's licence tenure, which all preschools are required to display at a prominent location that is accessible to the public and which is also available on LifeSG platforms. The licence tenure serves as an indication of a centre's quality and performance. For example, a 24-month licence indicates that a centre has met all key licensing requirements, while a six-month licence indicates that the centre has several areas for improvement.

Mr Muhaimin Abdul Malik.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. With reference to the 2023 molestation case involving the three victims, ages one to two years old, that are under a gag order imposed by the Courts, I have two supplementary questions. The first question: were the parents of the other unaffected children informed of the safety violations? Question two: while ECDA and the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) have restricted new enrolment into the preschool, were parents of these new children informed of the recent safety violations?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the question. I think the question that the Member has raised is specific to the 2023 incident. I do not have the details of the incident and cannot respond to this case.

I think how ECDA responds to every incident will depend on the context, and what the Court rules and decides on. If it is in the interest of all parents and the public to know about the incident, and the Court has not imposed a gag order, we will make a deliberate decision whether or not to release such information. But in this case, like what the Member has mentioned, there was a gag order and therefore, in such cases, we will typically not share information.

I want to reiterate the fact that, especially for parents who are concerned about safety, we do note the importance, and that all parents want a safe, nurturing and conducive environment for all our children to grow up in. ECDA's mission is exactly that. We regulate the sector through the Early Childhood Development Centres Act. We have a Code of Practice, which is regularly updated and stipulates the minimum licensing requirements, regulatory requirements to ensure safety and well-being of our children. We cover aspects from safety to health, to nutrition, hygiene, curriculum, incident management, staff deployment, even administrative processes. A most recent addition was the requirement for closed-circuit television to be installed in the centres.

I think these are done in consultation with the industry, as well as taking into consideration international best practices. These are what we do to ensure that we have a tight regime and control, to ensure safety in all our preschools. We also come together regularly as a sector to share best practices and also take feedback from all our operators.

11 Ms Gho Sze Kee asked the Minister for Education (a) how many students were subject to balloting in the 2025 Secondary 1 Posting Exercise; (b) of this number, how many were unsuccessful and consequently considered for their next choice of school despite having met the cut-off points of their higher-order choice; and (c) since 2021, how many students have been similarly unsuccessful in balloting each year.

Mr Speaker, the Secondary 1 Posting Exercise operates on merit, with students achieving a better Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) score receiving priority for their preferred schools. Under the Achievement Levels (AL) scoring system, more students will have identical scores. When two or more students have identical scores and are competing for the last available vacancy at a school, the Ministry of Education (MOE) applies tie-breakers in the following order: the student's citizenship status, then the student's ranking of that school in their choices and finally, computerised balloting if needed.

In the 2025 Secondary 1 Posting Exercise, around one in 10 students underwent computerised balloting. This has been stable over the last few years. MOE does not track the number of students who were not successful despite meeting the cut-off point for a school, as this number can vary widely for individual schools each year, depending on students' choice. Instead, MOE tracks the percentage of students who were placed in a school amongst their top six choices. Since 2021, more than eight in 10 students were posted to a school within one of their top three choices, and more than nine in 10 to a school within their six choices.

Ms Gho.

Mr Speaker, I noted the Senior Minister of State's answer to my earlier Question No 3. I just wanted to be clear. If there is a compression of available places for non-affiliated students because Direct School Admission (DSA) for non-affiliated students do eat into the minimum quota of 20%, as we have just learnt, is this a contributing factor to student who have just met the cut-off point and nevertheless still be balloted out? That is my first question.

The second question: would MOE consider setting up a hard quota for non-affiliated and non-DSA admissions? So, this would ensure a meaningful and predictable number of places that remain available to students applying through the Secondary 1 admissions exercise.

Mr Speaker, for the first question, the cut-off point, there are two – one is the historical cut-off point, which is the cut-off point from the last balloting exercise, and then the cut-off point for the current exercise, which is dependent on the number of students applying and their scores, and then you look at the last available student going in, and then you derive that cut-off point. It varies, could be varied by one to two points, depends on each year's exercise.

So, in a way, each school's balloting rate depends ultimately on school choices and students' decisions, and DSA numbers and the kinds of students and numbers of students they admit each year. Having said that, it is linked to the Member's second point, and the Ministry will certainly study all of these suggestions and more.

12 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information over the past three years (a) what has been the trend of Singapore Post Ltd’s (SingPost) compliance with the Postal Quality of Service (QoS) standards set by the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA); (b) whether the IMDA has received feedback for service quality improvement by SingPost; and (c) if so, what are the three highest categories of feedback received.

Sir, SingPost has consistently met the Postal Quality of Service (QoS) standards over the years. Data on this compliance is published on the Infocomm Media Development Authority's (IMDA's) website.

In 2025, last year, IMDA received 23 pieces of feedback on postal service quality, all of which were related to misdelivered letters and delays in letter delivery. Similar trends were observed in 2023 and 2024.

Ms Hany Soh.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. In this regard, I have two supplementary questions. One is pertaining to a recent feedback that I have received from my Woodgrove residents. In fact, it is about misdelivery or missing letters that they were supposed to receive, inviting their children to attend our Woodgrove's Edusave ceremony. This is a rather unfortunate incident and we wondered how does the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) intend to ensure that there is continuous improvement to SingPost's services; bearing in mind, in the Senior Minister of State's earlier reply, it was mentioned that, indeed, some of the feedback has already been brought to the Ministry's attention.

The second supplementary question is, can MDDI share about SingPost's QoS standards in comparison with other countries' services standards?

Sir, firstly, may I say that I am sorry to hear about that incident at Woodgrove. I know Edusave Awards mean a lot to parents and their children. And hearing this, I will ask my IMDA colleagues to take a look into this particular case.

Secondly, on the issue of the how we assess SingPost's compliance with the QoS framework, IMDA gets an external, independent assessor to do a simulated letter test on a quarterly basis to determine whether SingPost has met the QoS requirements. And the results are published on IMDA's website.

In terms of the comparison of our QoS standards with other countries, in fact, Singapore has one of the most stringent QoS requirements compared to many other countries. For example, in Hong Kong, for Hongkong Post, letters are typically delivered within one to three days. And for many other countries the letters are generally delivered between two and five days.

13 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether Singaporeans who graduated overseas were included in the fresh graduate employment data published by the Ministry in September 2025; (b) of these graduates who found employment, how many were underemployed; and (c) how have recent labour market conditions affected these graduates' employment outcomes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the fresh graduate employment figures published by the Ministry in September 2025 covered graduates from the local autonomous universities and did not include Singaporeans who graduated from overseas universities.

Based on the internationally recognised measure of time-related underemployment, which refers to part-time workers who prefer full-time employment, the underemployment rate among residents aged 25 to 29 who graduated from overseas universities was 0.8% in 2025. This is about 0.1%, slightly above the 0.7% recorded for graduates from local autonomous universities.

Overall, the employment outcomes for graduates aged 25 to 29, remain generally strong for both local autonomous universities and overseas universities graduates, with around nine in 10 employed. Even so, graduates from local autonomous universities continue to have slightly more favourable outcomes on balance, and this is reflected in their lower unemployment as well as higher median wages.

We will continue to support all of our fresh graduates' entry into the workforce. Students and fresh graduates from our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) can access Education and Career Guidance services within the IHLs. All students and fresh graduates, including those from overseas universities, may also make use of the career matching and coaching services offered by Workforce Singapore (WSG) and the National Trades Union Congress' (NTUC's) Employment and Employability Institute (e2i).

Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have three quick supplementary questions. I thank the Minister for the answers.

The first supplementary question is whether the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) intends to publish overseas graduate employment outcomes separately on a regular basis and how the Ministry ensures that these graduates are not systematically under-represented in headline fresh graduate statistics.

The second supplementary question is whether existing graduate employment support schemes – I think Minister shared some of the schemes nationally – are adequately calibrated for overseas educated Singaporeans? And whether MOM has observed different placement or wage outcomes, compared to locally educated graduates?

The third one is mainly from a sectoral perspective. Whether weaker hiring conditions in certain sectors have disproportionately affected overseas educated graduates, who typically return to Singapore later or maybe earlier in the hiring cycle and separate from the autonomous universities graduates?

I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. For his first point on publishing more data related to fresh graduates from overseas universities, MOM tracks as well as monitors the employment outcomes of graduates across various types of institutions and these include overseas universities, as well as our local private educational institutions. This is reflected through our comprehensive Labour Force Survey. The key findings from the survey are published in MOM's annual report on Labour Force in Singapore. We will continue to review the data collected and published, because we also want to be able to go sectorally and adopt a more differentiated and develop more precise and laser-focused insights into some of these problem areas.

For the second point, with regard to how well some of the overseas graduates are supported, we constantly work with the industry partners, with the advisory chambers and panels, as well as the trade associations and chambers, to calibrate many of our training, reskilling, upskilling policies. What we have seen from last year, which I want to share with Members, from the employment rate in 2025, the local autonomous universities graduates, as well as the overseas universities graduates, employment rate was at above 90%. The differential between overseas universities graduates versus the local autonomous universities graduates is just slightly over 1%.

If you look at the proportion of those in permanent employment – so we are talking again, juxtaposing the local university graduates versus the overseas university graduates – it is also above 90%. Again, that delta is 1%.

So, we do not think that at this particular point in time, that there are issues of concern between the two sets of graduates coming in. And moving forward, we will also be publishing which are the sectors that are still hiring. And we will try to show what the type of jobs graduates are looking for, versus the sectors that are hiring.

Very often, it is also about matching the expectations versus what is available. If I may also refer the Member to the Labour Market Advance Release for the fourth quarter in 2025 that we have just released, I believe it was last week. For the entire year, for 2025, the total employment growth, which is about 57,300, was stronger than a year ago, in 2024, which was about 44,500.

The unemployment rates in December of 2025 were broadly unchanged from a quarter before. And looking ahead, for this particular year, for the first quarter of 2026, business expectations suggest that the labour market will continue to expand, albeit amidst increased hiring caution. Another slight note of optimism, the share of firms expecting to hire in the next three months only edged down slightly – from 44% in September 2025, to 43% in December 2025.

But if you compare this at the same time, a larger share of firms expects to raise wages over the same period, rising from 19% to about 26%. So, actually, the market, notwithstanding the cautious optimism, does somewhat point to slightly improving business outcomes and continued competition for labour in certain areas. I hope that reassures the Member.

14 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) in the past three years, how many ComCare applications were denied citing non-compliance with employment action plans; (b) whether applicants are given the opportunity to provide evidence of their engagement with partner agencies before such denials; and (c) whether the Ministry will ensure applicants are heard before being denied on such grounds.

Mr Speaker, Sir, ComCare Short-to-Medium Term Assistance (SMTA) helps clients with their basic living expenses as they work on improving their financial situation. Our Social Service Office (SSO) officers work closely with clients to develop suitable action plans to achieve this.

Clients are informed at the very outset that they must adhere to these action plans. However, should they face genuine difficulties meeting them or if they need more time, the action plans can be reviewed.

Based on the household's adherence to action plans and progress towards self-reliance, the amount and duration of the SMTA may be adjusted while ensuring dependants' basic needs are being met. The Ministry for Social and Family Development (MSF) family coaches, who are working with the families, will also get them help from the community, for example, with the provision of milk and diapers, if necessary.

We do not track the number of applicants who were not given ComCare because they did not comply with their action plans.

Mr Tiong.

Thank you, Speaker. One supplementary question. It has been represented to me – and these are the facts, as I understand them – that a young married constituent with young children, unemployed and living in a rental flat, was denied ComCare because he did not follow up with e2i. But he has WhatsApp records that e2i messaged him on 15 December, asking him if he was still looking for work and he replied "yes" on the same day. He followed up on 24 December, asking about jobs with hours compatible with sending his children to school. And as far as I can tell, e2i did not respond to either messages. The SSO rejection letter arrived before anyone asked him for evidence of his engagement.

So, without pre-judging things, my question is, does SSO take e2i's or other employment partner agencies' word, unconditionally, before rejecting an applicant for non-engagement? Is the applicants given a chance to present their side?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. I will say this: for each family and each applicant, they face various unique circumstances and challenges. For this particular case, SSO is aware and is currently considering the appeal. And actually, for this particular family, it is a known family and the family coach has helped the family in other ways as well, including provision of food rations, infant milk powder and diapers.

Having said that, this cessation of financial assistance or the tapering off of it, is not something that SSO takes very lightly. SSO reviews it with the help of the Social Assistance Officer (SAO), who has embarked and partnered with the applicant family on the action plan, which would help them to improve their financial situation.

And so, the SAO will contact the applicants for an interview and at the stage of assessment of the SMTA, the SAO will also get information from the family coach, from other sources of information as well, to ensure that they look at the entire assistance that is required by the family.

And rest assured, for the Member, that every applicant for SMTA will be able to get financial assistance by SSOs and we will look at how to help them meet their basic living needs and also journey with them on this journey for self-reliance so that they can improve their financial situation. That is the purpose of the action plan.

I ask all Members in this House, if they know of any residents or they know of any applicants, partner with the SSOs so that we can embark on this action plan with them together on the path towards self-reliance, not just financial assistance.

15 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Manpower for each year from 2020 to 2025 for companies with more than 25 workers, how many have paid retrenchment benefits at (i) above and (ii) below the prevailing tripartite guidelines governing retrenchment payouts respectively, to workers.

Mr Speaker, my reply will also address Question No 46 for written answer, raised by Mr Patrick Tay in today's Order Paper, as the subject matter is similar.

Go ahead.

Based on Mandatory Retrenchment Notification (MRN) data submitted by companies with 10 or more employees, around nine in 10 eligible employees received retrenchment benefits from 2020 to 2025. Among them, around eight in 10 received retrenchment benefits of at least two weeks’ salary per year of service, in line with the norms stated in the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Excess Manpower and Responsible Retrenchment (TAMEM).

Mr Singh.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, the second half of 2025 saw a raft of reports on retrenchments in Singapore, ranging from foreign and local companies, affecting both professional, managers, executives and technicians (PMET), and rank and file workers. In one case, a unionised company did not inform the Ministry of its intentions, leaving workers in the lurch, while there are reports of another company including a clause in its severance agreement to disentitle workers from retrenchment benefits if they report the retrenchment to the authorities.

My first supplementary question is this. Will the Government mandate that all retrenchments by companies, regardless of size, be it more or less than 25 workers, would have to be reported before an exercise is carried out? And second, that a company that includes punitive and unreasonable clauses with respect to retrenchment, like the one I referred to earlier, can at minimum expect to have its Work Pass privileges revoked, in addition to other penalties?

My second supplementary question: I note Senior Minister of State's reply and the differentiating factor was companies with 10 or more employees, and my Parliamentary Question covered companies with 25 or more employees. I use the number "25" because the recent Workplace Fairness Act created a differentiated regime based on this number of employees. Companies with more workers were deemed to have more resources to comply, while those with less were exempt, even though they still have to comply with the spirit of the law through the Tripartite Guidelines for Fair Employment Practices.

In view of the reply given by the Senior Minister of State, would the Government similarly consider a differentiated guideline on retrenchment benefits, requiring an increase in benefits for companies with more than 25 workers, above the Government's prevailing retrenchment guidelines, rather than having a one-size-fits-all guideline that extends the same recommended retrenchment benefits to companies, both big and small, so that our workers receive equitable retrenchment benefits?

I thank the Member for his three supplementary questions. His first question pertains to whether we can mandate companies of all sizes to notify the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) of retrenchments. I think there is no real right or wrong answer to this, whether it should be companies of a certain size to notify MOM. At this moment, our requirement for mandatory retrenchment is for companies that retrench five or more workers to notify MOM – and not specific to company size per se. The reason for this is that we want to understand if a company has a sizeable retrenchment of more than five workers, MOM would want to know and we want to extend early support to these workers who may be losing their jobs. So, notification is not necessarily related to company sizes per se. [Please refer to ​"Clarification by Senior Minister of State for Manpower", Official Report, 4 February 2026, Vol 96, Issue 16, Correction By Written Statement section.]

But to require every single company to notify MOM of just one worker being retrenched, I think that would impose a lot of extra burdens. So, we want to just size it where we can make a meaningful contribution to helping workers who may be in need without imposing excessive legislative demands on companies.

On the issue of punitive clauses, I believe there was a Parliamentary Question that was asked about the specific company, and I have addressed it in a previous Parliamentary reply. So, I will not go into further details on this particular instance, on the punitive clauses. The Member can check the answer for that previous Parliamentary reply.

His third question is whether companies of different sizes, especially those which have more than 25 workers, can be mandated to give more retrenchment benefits, rather than what he calls a "one-size-fits-all" requirement. I think, when it comes to retrenchment, we must understand that companies retrench workers for various reasons. And the tripartite partners have actually deliberated extensively on whether to make retrenchment benefits mandatory at all, regardless of company sizes – just the idea of a retrenchment benefit being made mandatory. And in fact, to also think about whether we should specify the minimum quantum in legislation.

So, the questions of minimum quantum and mandatory retrenchment benefits have been deliberated extensively by the tripartite partners. And we concluded that a balanced approach to protect workers, while at the same time providing businesses flexibility, would achieve better outcomes for both workers and businesses. Because there are many reasons why a retrenchment exercise takes place. Imposing strict conditions, such as legally mandating retrenchment benefits, may affect the viability of companies who are already in financial difficulties and put existing employees, other employees who may still be in employment with the company, at risk of also being retrenched, if the company then gets into further financial difficulties by the fact that we mandate a certain requirement for monetary compensation that actually makes it difficult for them to even continue.

The second reason, of course, is that mandatory retrenchment benefit may also result in employers becoming more hesitant to offer long-term or permanent contracts to employees. And stipulating a minimum retrenchment benefit quantum in law will likely result in that quantum becoming the norm itself, such that even when companies are able to give more, they may then say, "if this is the only thing that is required by the law, let us just do the minimum as required and not go beyond that". So, this will not benefit workers in situations where the employers are able to pay higher amounts.

The tripartite partners agreed on a balanced approach to issue guidelines instead, which stipulate the prevailing norms for retrenchment benefit quantum and as mentioned in my reply, most employees today already receive retrenchment benefits in line with these tripartite guidelines.

Mr Singh.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Two quick questions for the Senior Minister of State. The first one is, when was the last time the tripartite partners deliberated on retrenchment benefits and the legislation of retrenchment benefits, or the appropriate amount that ought to be set for these benefits?

The second question, I may have not heard the Senior Minister of State accurately at the beginning. My question pertains to companies that pay out retrenchment benefits at the prevailing guidelines and those above the prevailing guidelines. Because that will give us a sense of whether there could be some adverse selection arising from setting one fixed guideline, which then forces companies instead of paying more, they just pay the lowest amount. So, the question is, do we have data on how many companies pay above that guideline and how many companies pay at the prevailing guideline, which was the Parliamentary Question that was asked?

Sir, I refer to my main reply, which said that for companies with 10 or more employees, around nine in 10 eligible employees received retrenchment benefits and among them eight in 10 received retrenchment benefits of at least two weeks' salary per year of service. But I do not have the breakdown of how many among these eight in 10 received more than two weeks per year of service, because the difference also arises from whether this is a company where the employees are unionised.

In general, for unionised companies, if they have a collective agreement, the prevailing norm in unionised companies with a collective agreement is one month per year of service. So, depending on whether the worker is a union member, whether this company is unionised, workers who were retrenched could get at least two weeks, maybe even more, per year of service. And there are instances in which certain companies actually value their long-term workers who may have been with them for longer and give in excess of a month per year, up to a month and a half, sometimes with a lot more ex gratia as well.

So, that is why I said it is a balanced approach, given flexibility to the company and for companies which may have better financial means where the number of workers retrenched are lesser, they could lean forward a lot more and support the workers a lot more. But for companies who are in financial distress, where they have to lay off a large number of workers, they may not have the financial wherewithal to go beyond that two weeks per year of service quantum, and they have to then spread the financial support to a lot more of their workers who are being retrenched. I hope the Member understands where that kind of flexibility afforded to the workers and to the company is important in such instances.

Okay, last supplementary question. Mr Singh.

It is not a supplementary question. It is the question that I asked prior, with regard to when was the last time the tripartite partners deliberated.

Your first supplementary question, yes.

Sir, I am afraid I do not have the detail of the exact date in which we did this review, but I would say TAMEM, I think, there was a recent update, probably just around the period of the COVID-19 crisis. So, I will have to check back on that. But the Member could also maybe check on the website and see when that guideline was revised.

Mr Patrick Tay.

Just one supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State on retrenchment benefits payout. I have noticed anecdotally some multinational companies set retrenchment benefit caps. They are lower than the prescribed benchmark set in TAMEM. In that, we have 25 years, but some may have set lower, for example, 12, 15, especially for the PMEs that are affected. Is MOM doing anything about this?

Sir, I think this is something that we will have to continue to engage with companies on, because some of these multinational companies may follow certain norms that they bring over from their operations in other jurisdictions or their home country. But in general, we do encourage our unions to continue to engage with multinationals, and many of them do engage with these multinationals. And through a more interactive understanding between the unions and the companies, we hope to socialise them to the norms that are here. And in general, many of these companies, once they understand the different tripartite environment in which they operate here in Singapore, many of them, over time, will consider moving closer to that kind of norm, especially in a collective agreement setting.

16 Ms Kuah Boon Theng asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how many persons with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are currently waitlisted for placement with a Day Activity Centre (DAC); (b) what is the average waitlist time before an applicant with ASD is offered a place at a DAC; and (c) are there any plans to make more DAC places available for persons with ASD.

Minister for Social and Family Development): Sir, there are eight Day Activity Centres (DACs) that specialise in serving clients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD); 130 are on the waitlist for placement in these centres and the average waiting time for enrolment is nine months.

The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) is ramping up DAC capacity by 500 places to address the demand for DACs, as announced in MSF’s Committee of Supply in 2024.

Ms Kuah.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his answer. I should declare, first of all, that I am a parent with a child with ASD, who would be classified as requiring high support needs.

I am grateful for the data that has been supplied. My understanding, though, is that average number or wait time, can vary widely depending on which type of DAC we are referring to. And in some of the larger ones with more facilities, I understand, that the wait time can be up to five years or more. Is that correct, may I ask?

And really, I have two main supplementary questions.

The first is whether there are any concerns that what we see on the waitlist may not really be a true reflection of the actual demand and need for these services. And I say this for two factors: one, parents with ASD children want predictability in terms of the arrangements for their care, the environment that they are in. And sometimes, when they are on the waitlist for too long, they can decide to take the child off the waitlist because the child has gotten used to being kept at home, even though it is not ideal. So, that is one factor.

The other factor is that DAC costs for ASD, in particular, are quite high. I know that there were announcements less than two years ago that with the fee caps introduced, families that earn $2,800 or less will have their costs managed. But those who earn more than $2,800 a month can pay up to $1,900. So, if you have a family that has a household income of $5,000, they are being asked to commit 40% of the household income to pay for DAC. So, there is a concern that the waitlist does not look so bad because it is not affordable. So, that is the first question.

The other question I have is, are there any plans to work and collaborate with private providers of special education for young adults with ASD, to explore if more places can be made available to address the short- to middle-term critical shortage of DAC places and possibly to extend subsidies to help more families afford those fees.

Sir, I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. I think we most certainly look at the issue of capacity, not just in the uni-dimension of number of places alone. We do look at the different disability types, the demand under each category, and also we take an island-wide view of where the availability of these centres are for each of these disability types. It is a more nuanced approach than my main reply would suggest. But at the back-end with MSF and also with SG Enable, we do work very closely with our partners, with our colleagues in SG Enable as well as our social service agencies to understand, drill down to what are the real needs in terms of the heat map around the island. So, rest assured that we are doing a much more nuanced analysis than just capacity alone.

With regard to whether we are prepared to work with private providers, the short answer is yes. We are looking at options to see how we can vary the different service models that we are looking at today.

I think one of the key principles that I really want to hark back to is to take a step back to see what is our end objective for persons with disabilities, persons who are living with autism. And one of the key objectives is to make sure that they can continue to live in the community with the families for as long as possible. That is to say we want to delay institutionalisation for as long as possible.

Hence, that is why in the past few years, we have worked vigorously on various pilots. Pilots like the Enabled Living Programme, the Home Support Programme, which will start in the second half of this year. These provide community living options for persons with disabilities and special needs.

And then, there is the Enabling Services Hub (ESH), for which we have set up three across the island now. Progressively over the next few years we will be setting up more of these ESHs to make sure that we can provide community connections through the provision of social activities, caregiver support, as well as referral services. Because we are not dealing with a situation where there is a lack of services for persons with disabilities; rather, sometimes is that navigation of this quite complex landscape that is the issue.

And also the Enabled Enabling Skills for Life Programme (ESLP) which is fundamentally a new service model that we are looking at which integrates the current DAC, as well as shelter workshop models to provide and equip persons with disabilities for independent living, for community participation, as well as for employability.

It sounds like there are many pilots and there indeed are. But the end goal is this: that we want our persons with disabilities and special needs, we want them to not just make do in life, but we want them to be able to thrive and flourish.

On the related issue of affordability, rest assured that through the inter-agency task force that is currently headed up by Minister of State Goh Pei Ming, we are looking at that deeply in terms of affordability of services, not just the availability of services.

And I think I want to close by making a call to our Members of this Chamber, as well as to the larger society, that our vision is for our persons with disabilities to flourish, to thrive and not just to survive in the community. We can be closer to our vision when more in our society can embrace our fellow workers, our fellow students, fellow members of a community. I call upon all Members of this Chamber to be part of this movement so that we can move the needle towards making Singapore a more caring and inclusive society.

Ms Kuah.

Just a quick further question. I appreciate the Senior Parliamentary Secretary's point about understanding different needs. But the question I raised was actually specifically for those who require high support needs. And although every parent wants to see their child learn to be more independent, the reality is that for those with high support needs, that is the most challenging category, they are going to need a lot more care. And yes, we all want to delay institutionalised care, but the earlier we are able to get them into a DAC where they are stimulated and they are exposed to activities, the better. So, at the end of the day it does come down to capacity and I know that we have a shortage of people willing to work in this area. I do hope that the Ministry will do more to provide more resources for that.

Sir, I thank the Member for her supplementary question. We are in agreement, total agreement. As I mentioned, we will increase DAC spaces by 500 over the next few years by 2030; and we are prepared to ramp up even more if there is an assessed need to do so.

17 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Ministry tracks food and beverage outlet closures each year from 2015 to 2025; (b) the breakdown between standalone outlets, local chains and foreign chains; (c) common reasons for closures; and (d) whether measures exist to preserve the unique local area heritage through a mix of food and retail offerings.

Mr Speaker, the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) tracks and publishes information on the formation and cessation of all business entities. The Government does not track the breakdown of cessations between standalone outlets, local chains and foreign chains.

The food services sector is highly competitive due to low barriers of entry, high product substitutability and rapidly shifting consumer preferences. Between 2015 and 2025, there has been a net increase of 42% in the number of food and beverages (F&B) entities, with formations outpacing cessations in most years.

The Government values Singapore's local heritage and takes steps to preserve and sustain it in our F&B landscape. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Dr Syed Harun, shared yesterday about our efforts to support heritage businesses under the Inter-agency Task Force for Heritage Businesses, Traditional Activities and Cultural Life. Enterprise Singapore also supports initiatives that protect and enhance local heritage through curated F&B and retail experiences. An example is, of course, New Bahru, a creative cluster that blends heritage conservation with a curated mix of contemporary local F&B and lifestyle businesses.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank Minister of State for his answer. I have three supplementary questions.

One is for the granular data that the Minister of State mentioned the Government does not collect, whether there is a possibility going forward that there will be the collecting granular data, in particularly in mature heartland estates, so that we can have a feel of the shifts?

Second is whether the Ministry has observed whether the closures disproportionately affect independent operators compared with chain outlets and how this may shape the character of neighbourhood centres over time?

The last supplementary question is in relation to the independent operators, if they face difficulty, is it possible for SME Centres and maybe the consultants within these SME Centres to be more proactive to help these independent operators before they fold, especially some of those who are heritage independent operators?

Sir, I thank Mr Saktiandi Supaat for his supplementary questions. We do not track those data, so we will take his suggestion into consideration.

With regard to the support for many of these independent operators or SMEs, or even heartland shops, I would like to assure the Member that, in fact, in addition to the SME Centres, Enterprise Singapore works very closely with heartland shops as well as SMEs on a variety of programmes. Every year, in Budget 2023, 2024, 2025, we have announced new measures to help SMEs.

We have also new programmes that help them. Recently, we have the food services productivity report, which allows for SMEs to benchmark themselves with their peers to see what are the best practices, for example. Then, we have the Food X Programme, for example, that enables them to maybe outsource some of the more operationally difficult or expensive parts of their operations. And then, we also have a Process Optimisation Programme which helps them to adopt new technology to help to streamline their businesses.

At the same time, we work very closely with the trade associations and commerce; for example, the Restaurant Association of Singapore and the Singapore Retailers Association. In fact, I just met them earlier this week to speak about these as well as other issues to help to raise the competitiveness of our SMEs and our heartland merchants.

18 Mr Foo Cexiang asked the Minister for National Development whether the CPF Board will consider aligning the life expectancy factor with the Department of Statistics Singapore's reported average of 83.5 years when tabulating how much CPF savings can be used to purchase a property, instead of the existing 95 years.

Mr Speaker, our rules on Central Provident Fund (CPF) usage for property purchases are intended to encourage Singaporeans to buy a home for life, which safeguards their housing and retirement adequacy.

Under the current Home for Life condition, the remaining lease must cover the youngest owner till at least age 95. So, if we set the requirement at 83.5 years, many seniors would live longer than this average lifespan.