Hansard, Wednesday, 8 April 2026

1 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health beyond bed occupancy rates, ward admission waiting times and emergency department attendances, what additional public health indicators the Ministry will publish on a monthly or bi-weekly basis to enable the public to better track health outcomes and system pressures, in light of Singapore’s transition to a super-aged society.

Mr Speaker, the Ministry of Health (MOH) publishes various public health indicators related to the health system and population health outcomes. For example, several capacity related indicators are available on the MOH website. The annual National Population Health Survey covers lifestyle risk factors and practices such as smoking, screening and vaccinations. The National Nutritional Survey informs us of the dietary patterns and nutritional status of the population. The annual MOH Revenue and Expenditure Estimates – that is, the Budget Book – also published various key performance indicators, such as life expectancy, mortality rates from diseases, disease prevalence, medical resources and so on. In addition, indicators on cancer, chronic kidney failure, stroke and heart attack are also published by the National Registry of Disease Office annually.

Health outcomes take time to shape and evolve, and it would not be appropriate to report fortnightly or monthly.

Mr Singh.

Mr Speaker, thank you and I thank the Minister of State for the reply. My question really starts from the debate at the Committee of Supply. The Minister of State referred to the Budget Book. There are two particular key performance indicators (KPIs) there, for example. One is "the percentage of patients who wait less than or 100 minutes for consultations at polyclinics". There is another one which says "the percentage of patients who waited more than or equal to 60 days for new subsidised specialist outpatient clinic appointments".

My question was framed with regard to our super-aged society. The consideration that I am suggesting that MOH looks into is whether there could be a public health dashboard for Singaporeans that gives us a one-stop identifiable datapoint on what our public healthcare outcomes are looking like on a bi-weekly or monthly basis. So, these two KPIs in the Budget Book, for example, could potentially be on that dashboard. There are other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries which also have public health dashboards.

My query ultimately is, how is MOH going to look at improving reporting of these public health outcomes in the context of a super-aged society and not prior to this Rubicon that we have now crossed?

Mr Speaker, I appreciate the input and insight that the Member has raised. Perhaps I could just give some insight also as to how we have framed this.

When we look at how we are tracking and measuring, we look at an end-to-end and a full suite approach to things: we look at the preventive efforts that we are doing, and that is why we are tracking screening rates, enrolment to Healthier SG; we look at the aspect of the systems and the pressures on that; the access to care is also one dimension; we also look at the larger health outcomes. There is actually a full range, and in that sense, many of these are already available, that datapoint is already available to the public to scrutinise and look at.

Secondly, I think in deciding what are some of the KPIs or items for us to track, there needs to be an appreciation as to whether or not that is meaningful. I take note of some of the items that the Member has raised. There needs to be a balance in what we are tracking, because just providing the information may not provide any meaningful insight or will necessarily encourage the right behaviours.

For example, when we look at Emergency Department timings, the point of it is really that at the end of the day for Emergency Departments, if it is an emergency case, it will be attended to immediately. Regardless of the median waiting times or whatever, there is already a protocol that is in place. The point is, we also want to then nudge behaviours. That particular measure may not necessarily reflect the efforts we are taking in that space.

There is also cost to tracking and the measuring, so we want to make sure that whatever we decide on to measure must be meaningful, must then lead to better behaviours and the correct approaches to then respond to some of those indicators.

But I do take the point and we are actually reviewing to see what is a meaningful way to put out this information so that the public can understand, so that we can all track properly whether the good health outcomes are a result of the efforts that we are making. I will take the feedback back and we will continue to review this.

Mr Singh.

Thank you, Speaker. The Minister of State mentioned meaningful impact a few times, so I will give an example. The KPI in the Budget Book, "the percentage of patients who waited less than or at least 100 minutes for consultations at polyclinics", for example, for each fiscal year, 2023, 2024, 2025 – the number is 99%. So, it is very high degree in terms of hitting the KPI. But at some point we have to ask, is that a meaningful representation of what constitutes a good public health outcome? Is 100 minutes too lax or two permissive a KPI?

So, I think if you have a public health dashboard, for example, with a little bit more granularity, I believe the public would have a better sense of the stressors on the healthcare system and where improvements can be made, and where changes also can be advanced in Parliament and out of Parliament to achieve better outcomes for the population at large.

I appreciate the Member's feedback. As I said earlier, this is something that we will continue to consider. But we do also have to appreciate that the information that we get is live, in terms of waiting times and all that. So, the Member is right in that we will constantly review as to whether that measure is actually a good reflection of the state of the health systems. But as you know, we give feedback all the time to MOH and we do respond quite immediately to some of these issues, especially with, say, waiting time at the polyclinics, how they are utilising the online systems. And on the go, our public healthcare providers are constantly trying to improve and adapt.

So, I want to give that assurance that we do take note of these: one, in respect of making sure that whatever we are measuring is meaningful; two, there is always a quick response to immediately and promptly respond to the needs on the ground as to the healthcare utilisation and to respond to the changing landscape with regard to ageing.

2 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Acting Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs in light of the volatile security situation and travel disruptions in the Middle East (a) what is the current status of this year’s haj arrangements for Singapore pilgrims; and (b) what contingency plans are in place to safeguard pilgrims and support them should the situation deteriorate further.

Mr Speaker, to date, preparations for Haj 2026 are proceeding as planned. The Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura or MUIS) remains in close contact with Saudi Arabia's Ministry of Hajj and Umrah on the arrangements, and will continue to monitor the latest developments in the Middle East.

MUIS is working closely with the Association of Muslim Travel Agents Singapore (AMTAS), and the appointed haj travel agents and service providers to support our pilgrims for a safe haj journey. These include using direct flights to and from Saudi Arabia, choosing ground transport options less susceptible to disruption, and closer coordination of pilgrim movements in Madinah, Makkah and Jeddah. MUIS is also developing contingency plans with AMTAS and haj travel agents, to plan for potential travel disruptions and unforeseen incidents during the pilgrimage.

Above all, the safety and welfare of our pilgrims remain our utmost priority. MUIS will continue to keep all pilgrims and the wider community informed of the latest haj arrangements.

Dr Wan Rizal.

Sir, I thank the Minister for the reply. I am glad to hear that the haj will continue this year as planned. Given the continuing uncertainty in the Middle East, I think many pilgrims and their families are rightly so concerned about this year's arrangements, and perhaps also what happens if they are disrupted at very short notice. Some have also shared that they might want to withdraw for safety reasons.

My first supplementary question is, if haj arrangements are cancelled or significantly disrupted this year, or if some pilgrims choose to defer due to security concerns, will pilgrims who were due to travel this year be given priority in the following year or subsequent years? And how will this affect others who are already in the queue?

My second supplementary question is, if that happens, can the Minister also clarify is there some way that they can get a refund or deferment or financial assistance that could be provided and arranged for them, so that the affected pilgrims are not unfairly penalised for circumstances that are beyond their control?

Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. The answer is yes, the affected pilgrims will be given priority, but this is subject to the annual quota allocated by Saudi Arabia's Ministry of Hajj and Umrah. And when that happens, MUIS will work closely with AMTAS to make the necessary arrangements.

On his second supplementary question, we understand that pilgrims will be concerned about the financial impact in event that haj is cancelled or disrupted. As I shared earlier, we are in close contact with Saudi Arabia's Ministry of Hajj and Umrah and AMTAS to ensure that the affected pilgrims receive the necessary support and financial assistance. Also, the type of support that we provide depends on the prevailing circumstances. Should haj be cancelled or disrupted this year, we will work closely with AMTAS to allow the affected pilgrims to defer to the subsequent haj seasons. MUIS will work with the travel agents and the Saudi-based service providers to explore possible refunds, given the situation.

So, as I shared earlier, we will continue to monitor the situation. We will keep all the pilgrims informed on the latest arrangements and support measures in a timely manner. We know the haj is a very significant milestone for Muslims and we want to make sure that while we facilitate, we also want to take care of the safety and the welfare of our pilgrims, and we seek the community's understanding and collective effort to stand together during this time of crisis.

3 Dr Neo Kok Beng asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry has any plan to issue guidelines for co-parenting arrangements between foster and biological parents; and (b) if so, when will these guidelines be issued.

4 Dr Neo Kok Beng asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what the present estimated shortfall of foster parents is; and (b) what additional programmes are planned to address this shortfall, if any.

5 Dr Neo Kok Beng asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what has been the attrition rate of foster parents in the last three years; (b) what are the reasons or issues for such attrition; and (c) how can these issues be resolved.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take oral Question Nos 3 to 5 filed by Nominated Member Dr Neo Kok Beng in today’s Order Paper together, as they pertain to matters concerning foster parents.

Please proceed.

My response will also address a related question filed by the Member Dr Neo Kok Beng1 for a subsequent Sitting, and if the Member is satisfied with the response, he may wish to withdraw the question after this session.

The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) will continue to grow our pool of foster parents so that more children in state care can be placed in safe and stable family-based settings, which generally provide better social, emotional and developmental outcomes than institutional care.

MSF has partnered fostering agencies, community organisations, religious groups and private organisations to raise awareness and recruit more foster families. We have also strengthened support measures, such as increasing the fostering allowance for those caring for teenagers from October 2025, and removing the minimum household income and educational requirements for applicants from July 2024. On co-parenting, we are open to considering arrangements between foster and biological parents where appropriate, particularly to facilitate reunification of the child with the biological parents and where it is in the child’s best interests.

On attrition, about 6% of foster parents have been deregistered each year on average over the last three years. The reasons include new family commitments, health or age-related factors and relocation. We will continue to strengthen support, training and engagement with foster families to improve retention, and build a strong fostering ecosystem. The Member may wish to refer to Parliamentary written answers on "Increasing Enrolment of Foster Parents" at the 18 February 2025 Sitting to learn more about earlier enhancements to foster care.

On Child LifeSG Credits, they are credited to the Child Development Account (CDA) trustee of an eligible child to ensure that support is directed to the individual responsible for the child’s care and upbringing. While it is possible for the trustee to change the CDA trustee through the bank’s portal or mobile application, I would like to point out that in designing the foster allowances, MSF does not assume reliance on these credits.

Foster parents receive a monthly fostering allowance ranging from $1,100 to $1,800, depending on the child’s age and needs, to help defray childcare and other out-of-pocket expenses. In addition, foster children are eligible for childcare, student care and medical subsidies.

Dr Neo.

Thank you, Speaker. I have two supplementary questions. Firstly, we acknowledge that MSF has done a very good job in reintegration, the percentage is very high, for the foster children with their birth families. What I would like to ask is, what is the long-term reintegration rate? How long and how do we measure success of the reintegration? This is to ensure the long-term safety and well-being of the child.

The other supplementary question is on, again, I want to follow up on the rights of the foster parents. What is the status right now for them to access the information of the foster children, especially in education, where they need to monitor but now they do not have access to. Also, they need to book the medical appointments online for the polyclinics or hospital and they do not have access. So, what is the status of this right now, as the focus is really for these foster children to be in the care of their foster parents for a couple of years?

Mr Speaker, I will take the Member's second question first. Once a child or young person has been assigned to a set of foster parents through a Court Order or a Voluntary Care Agreement, foster parents will be issued a letter from MSF that identifies them as the caregivers under the Ministry's fostering scheme. This letter facilitates communications between the foster parents and the healthcare professionals to ensure that the medical needs are addressed. It also allows them to communicate through the school system to take care of the schooling and educational needs

However, I acknowledge the Members point. Many of the public agencies' services have gone digital and therefore, we do want to provide this digital access as well. This is also the feedback consistent with what we have gotten from many foster parents. Therefore, MSF is currently working to further enhance our foster parents' experience by providing them access to the foster child's education and healthcare information through HealthHub and Parents Gateway. This is in progress and we will hope to update the Member at a later date, once these are ready.

On the second question, in terms of the long-term success rate, it is not a single percentage or single metric that we measure by. What is more important, success is measured by whether the child is able to safely and sustainably stay with the birth family over time.

Some other factors we look at when we evaluate whether this is safe and sustainable, include whether there is further abuse or neglect, the absence of it, is useful, stable caregiving arrangements within the family to care for the child, the overall well-being and functioning of the child, especially if the child is in school, as well as health and behavioural aspects.

To safeguard the child after reintegration, MSF has post-reunification monitoring protocols. This includes safety checks at least monthly by MSF case officers, complemented by inputs from community partners, such as schools, social service agencies who know the family well to ensure that if there are any risk or any concerns, these are picked up early. Children are also monitored for at least 12 months after reintegration and longer if we need to, depending on the family circumstances and the overall assessed level of risk. Where concerns arise, MSF will not hesitate to intervene promptly to provide additional support to take further protective actions when needed.

Mr Dennis Tan.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Relating to one issue of co-parenting, I would like to ask will the Ministry consider granting foster parents synchronised access to the child's Health Buddy app? Currently, foster parents have no access to the app and require the cooperation of biological parents. Sometimes, the cooperation may not be given for various different reasons. I believe the Ministry can help to bridge this gap to ensure better healthcare continuity for our foster children, and also better coordination between the foster and biological parents.

If it is not possible to grant access across all fostering cases due to the temporary nature of some of the fostering arrangements, then, given that many foster placements last for several years, will MSF at least consider enabling Health Buddy access to at least the longer-term foster parents, for example, those who are at least two to three years or upwards?

I thank the Member for his concern for foster children. I think the question is similar to my reply given to Nominated Member of Parliament Dr Neo. In particular, we recognise that it is important to give foster parents access to health information, and those may be on Health Buddy. Like what I mentioned earlier, we are working on providing digital access to foster parents.

In terms of what data fields and what information is provided to the parents, these are being looked at, because, like the Member said, the situation for every child, the length of foster care differs. And in some cases, depending on the circumstances under which the child is placed under foster care, and the relationship with the biological parents, things can be sensitive, and therefore we have to consider all that when we arrange for what data fields are available to the foster parents.

But ultimately, the primary consideration is that we want to make sure that foster parents have the information required to provide the necessary care to the child and make sure that the child's best interests are addressed.

Mr Tan, a short one, please.

Yes, just a quick clarification. I thank the Minister of State for the answers and the details. The feedback I receive is pertaining, especially to making appointments, because there have been instances where foster parents experience appointments being cancelled without their knowledge, and then having to arrive at the hospital unnecessarily wasting their time.

Yes, indeed, so, the digital access that we are working on will allow for the appointment booking system and updates to be made available for foster parents to access.

6 Dr Haresh Singaraju asked the Minister for Education given that not all primary schools offer Tamil and Malay as mother tongue languages, how does the Ministry ensure that children from these language communities are not disadvantaged under the Primary 1 registration framework when the schools nearest to their homes do not offer their mother tongue language.

Sir, in the planning of schools, the Ministry of Education ensures that our students can access a primary school near their homes. Except for a small number, 15 of Special Assistance Plan schools, all primary schools offer the three official mother tongue languages.

7 Ms Gho Sze Kee asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs given that more than half of rape and molestation cases involve offenders known to victims (a) whether the increase in such crimes in 2025 was primarily driven by this category of offenders; (b) what are the contextual breakdown of the cases such as, in domestic, workplace, or educational settings; and (c) whether targeted interventions are being strengthened in these environments.

From 2024 to 2025, there was an increase of 104 cases of outrage of modesty, from 1,427 to 1,531 cases; and an increase of 78 cases of rape, from 401 to 479 cases. The majority of the rape cases and more than half of the outrage of modesty cases involved offenders known to the victims. The proportions of rape and outrage of modesty cases involving offenders known to the victims has remained stable over the last five years.

In 2025, of the total number of rape and outrage of modesty cases, approximately 33% took place in residential premises, 18% took place in commercial premises and 3% took place in educational institutions.

The Government takes a firm stance against all forms of sexual offending and Ministries have implemented a suite of measures to prevent offending, encourage reporting and improve victim support, regardless of where the offence occurs.

For example, in educational settings, students are taught to report their concerns and to seek help from trusted adults. In domestic settings, specialist agencies, such as the Protection Specialist Centres and Child Protection Specialist Centres, provide social and emotional support for victims of intra- and extra-familial violence, including sexual violence. The Police, on their part, also provide victim care services when investigating sexual offences.

8 Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh asked the Minister for Education regarding the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) findings linking earlier academic sorting to stronger socio-economic status (SES) performance associations (a) whether the Ministry has assessed whether PSLE-based school placement at age 12 amplifies the SES-performance gap; (b) if so, what that assessment found; and (c) if no such assessment exists, whether the Ministry intends to conduct one.

Mr Speaker, globally, our students from higher socio-economic status (SES) backgrounds tend to perform better academically than students from lower-income backgrounds. We have not studied, nor do we plan at this time to study, whether secondary school placement based on the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) results amplifies this skew, as there are many factors that influence the academic performance of our students.

Instead, our focus is to help all our students achieve their full potential, regardless of background. This includes providing more support to students from more disadvantaged backgrounds and also providing porosity in our education pathways, such as through Full Subject-Based Banding at the secondary level, to strengthen their education outcomes.

Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh.

Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Minister of State for the response. Given that the SES educational performance gap and the economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) index slope are indicators of educational inequity, and also given this House's commitment to educational equity, especially where we have stated that where you start does not determine where you end up in life, would the Ministry of Education (MOE) consider tracking and targeting these indicators? And if not, why not? Especially since these indicators can give us a sense of whether the measures that have been undertaken by MOE are working.

I thank the Member for his question. We will continue to monitor this trend closely as part of our overall efforts to ensure that all of our students are able to maximise their full potential.

Mr David Hoe.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions on social mixing as a leveller.

Could the Ministry share how it is actively strengthening social mixing across different SES within and across schools, and whether do we track the effectiveness of it? That is my first question.

The second one is, I would like to check if there is a progress update to my previous Parliamentary Question, where I asked whether MOE would consider a tie-breaker mechanism that gives students of lower SES background some priority for schools that are over-subscribed?

I thank the Member for his question. In response to his first question, yesterday, I did explain how our system of Posting Groups and Full Subject-Based Banding now do allow many more of our students to experience social mixing in our schools. Outside of formal curriculum, we also have co-curricular activities and Values in Action projects that our students can participate in.

On the Member's second question, we are reviewing. We will also engage the public in our education conversations, and update when ready.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join the debate. While I did not file a Parliamentary Question on this topic today, I had filed related Parliamentary Questions before and spoke on the issue during this year's Budget Debate.

To follow on from Assoc Prof Goh's Parliamentary Question, I wonder if the Ministry has looked into how much the growing relevance of SES may be driven by access to tuition? After all, if a student from a poorer household falls behind in class, they are much less likely to be able to make up for this lost ground with private tuition, compared to a family with access to more resources.

Relatedly, I recall that when I was going to school, our teachers would conduct remedial classes for weaker students. May I check how widespread such practice is in schools today, or has it become de-emphasised, perhaps because our teachers are already putting in between 47 and 53 hours a week, around 25% more than their Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development counterparts?

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, you are actually not entering a debate. You should be asking supplementary questions. I just wanted to make a point that we are not debating about an issue.

I thank the Member for his questions. MOE does provide additional support to many students with higher educational needs. And we continue to do so in programmes, even though the names may have changed from those that we understood and knew when we were students and those that students experience today.

For instance, primary schools do provide very targeted academic intervention for students who need more support to strengthen their foundational skills in reading, literacy and numeracy. This includes learning support programmes, reading remediation programmes and learning support for mathematics. So, we want to do this through our schools to ensure that all of our students do have access to support to improve their academic performances.

9 Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh asked the Minister for Education (a) how the Ministry assesses Singapore's economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) slope ranking of second out of 79 in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) systems, given that comparable high-performing systems such as Japan and Korea rank significantly lower; (b) what specific measures target a reduction in this slope; and (c) what progress is expected.

Based on our Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) results, Singapore has a steeper slope representing the association between the socio-economic status (SES) background and performance of our students, compared to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) average and most other systems. This is because, while our students from our lower-SES homes, as a group, performed better than their OECD counterparts with similar SES, our students from higher-SES homes outperformed their peers by an even larger margin. This differential gives rise to the steeper slope.

One simplistic way to flatten the slope is to stop our higher-performing students from doing so well. But that is not educationally sound and goes against our education philosophy of helping all students to develop to their full potential.

The Ministry of Education (MOE) is committed to uplifting students who need more help, without capping the potential of those who can excel. We do so through targeted measures, such as providing additional support to students who come from lower-income households or who have higher needs, including school-based after-school programmes for students from more challenging home environments.

Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh.

Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Minister of State again for the response. I think one of the concerns is, what the economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) slope implies or suggests is whether performance is driven by income or at least affected by income. I am not saying that it is caused by income, but whether there is a strong correlation between SES and performance.

So, it is not about capping potential, but whether or not the folks from higher SES backgrounds have more opportunities, and because of that, that leads to that increase in academic performance.

And my second supplementary question, it is related to the one I had asked before – whether or not this is an indicator that MOE will look into tracking because it can give a sense of whether the measures that have been implemented are working or not.

I thank the Member for his questions. I think the first question was more of a comment, I did not really catch the specific question, the first part of it.

Yes, it is more of a comment in response to her point about capping potential of high performance. So, the Minister of State was talking about one way of flattening the slope would be to lower the top end. But I do not think that necessarily means depriving people of opportunities. I think what it suggests is that there might be a certain group of people with more opportunities. And because of that, that gives them the chances to do better and hence, you see that the stronger relationship between ESCS and performance.

So, it is maybe putting forth a different interpretation of the data, and likewise, with the different interpretation, there could be different policy implications as well. Specifically, my question is whether MOE would consider that different interpretation and how that might change the policy.

Absolutely, I thank the Member for the clarification. Yes, we will continue to watch this trend and this indicator closely, as part of a suite of overall indicators that we use when assessing the overall educational outcomes for our students. I think on the first comment, my assurance is that we want to make sure that all Singaporean students have as much access to opportunities as possible, regardless of SES.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Thank you, Speaker. I will just reiterate that I agree with the Minister of State that none of us that argue against early tracking do so because we want to suppress the performance of our top students.

However, I am wondering if she is aware of research by professors Eric Hanushek and Ludger Woessmann, this was published in 2006 in Economic Journal, that argues that the result of early tracking is that it raises the impact of SES on educational inequality – not so much because of allowing those who are high achievers to blossom, but rather by lowering the performance of both groups, even the high achievers, and it lowers the ones of the low achievers even more.

I do not think I heard a specific question, but if the question is about whether I am aware of the research, well, after today, I definitely will be.

10 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Education in respect of students who are required to leave school before completing their national certifications, what alternative education, training or reintegration pathways does the Ministry provide to ensure they are not left without viable progression options.

Sir, it is our goal for all Singaporeans to have education, training or reintegration pathways through life, regardless of when or how they left school.

And those who wish to continue their education may approach the school in which they were last enrolled. Alternatively, they can approach the Ministry of Education's Education and Career Guidance Centre for advice and guidance on suitable educational pathways. If they are assessed to be age-appropriate for re-admission, they can be enrolled at a secondary school. The receiving schools may assess these students and provide bridging programmes to smoothen their transition back into mainstream education.

While for students who prefer other education and training options, there are also alternative pathways. So, students with minimal academic qualifications can consider the Institute of Technical Education General Education programme, which allows adult learners to obtain their GCE "N" or "O" Levels. This, in turn, then allows them to subsequently enrol in Higher Nitec and Diploma programmes in our institutes of higher learning.

SkillsFuture Singapore also provides subsidies for a wide range of industry-relevant training programmes to meet the upskilling needs of Singaporeans throughout their careers, regardless of their education or academic qualifications.

Ms Yeo Wan Ling.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Could he also share whether there are plans to strengthen early identification and intervention for students at risk of leaving school prematurely, including closer coordination with family and community partners, so that support can be put in place earlier to help them remain engaged in education or to transition more smoothly?

I talk about this because I met up with a resident from Punggol, whose son was asked to leave school when he was in Secondary 3. And because of this, he was not able to get any certification. And I think after a year of trying very hard to get into another school, they were not able to do so, eventually, what they had to do is that they put the son in private tuition. Eventually, after a year, the school did accept him, but after that, he again got suspended.

While we are talking about upstream and low stream, the other thing is also whether or not, the Senior Minister of State could also clarify, if the Ministry tracks the outcomes of students who leave school before completing their national certifications, in particular, how many have successfully transited into alternative education, like the ones he had pointed out, training or employment pathways? And what additional support is provided to those who struggle to reintegrate?

I think at the end of it all, we just want to make sure that no student is left without a viable pathway.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. And indeed, it is our goal to make sure that all Singaporeans, all students have good pathways through life.

Ms Yeo spoke about early upstream intervention. Yes, indeed, we do early upstream intervention. We do it in schools. What we want to do is to strengthen at-risk students' engagement and a sense of certain connectedness to the school. In fact, once any of our students show any signs of disengagement, they are individually tracked and they are supported. Form teachers and school counsellors reach out to our students to understand and to address any of these challenges.

A lot of this, like the Member pointed out, could be issues at home and otherwise. And every effort is made to counsel and to dissuade these at-risk students from dropping out of school, including engaging their parents to provide a more holistic support.

Also, to strengthen at-risk students' motivation and a sense of connectedness to school, the Ministry of Education (MOE) also provides resources and guidance for schools to create a supportive school environment and also, provide a conducive after-school support for the students. This is usually done in collaboration with many community partners. Depending on their needs, students are also referred to school-based programmes where they can be engaged through befriending or mentoring by community partners and volunteers, as well as interest-based activities that build peer support and relationships, which can help improve their social emotional connectedness.

Schools also work very closely with community partners and Government agencies, such as the Ministry of Social and Family Development's ComLink+, self-help groups, social service agencies to provide some of these upstream wraparound support for the at-risk students. I am sure the Member, being a very good grassroots advisor, would also have some of these programmes for at-risk youths in her constituency, as I do have in Tampines as well.

There is a huge network of youth and social support programmes, but in broad, MOE focuses also on that wraparound support for our students, to make sure they have a holistic and also very importantly, a good home care environment, to prevent them from dropping out of school.

To the Member's question about tracking outcomes, today, MOE tracks outcomes of students. But once they are not in the school education system anymore, we do not track those further. But as part of our manpower statistics, as part of what SkillsFuture Singapore and Workforce Singapore are doing, we do have some of the other indicators. As a whole, I think what we do want to do is to make use of a combination of these indicators to make sure that we have all the appropriate programmes to help all Singaporeans continue to upgrade in life.

11 Dr Haresh Singaraju asked the Coordinating Minister for Public Services and Minister for Defence in addition to the SAF's established internal mental health support system, whether full-time National Servicemen identified with mental health conditions associated with psychosocial stressors are systematically linked with external health and social sector partners to address underlying triggers and support their continued well-being during and after service.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for acknowledging the Singapore Armed Forces' (SAF's) established mental health support system in his Parliamentary Question in how we support Full-time National Servicemen (NSFs) with mental health needs.

To recap, then-Senior Minister of State for Defence, Mr Heng Chee How, had provided the description of the SAF's mental health support system in his response to Parliamentary Questions from Mr Desmond Choo and Dr Wan Rizal on 7 March 2024. The Member can refer to that reply as background information.

To the Member's question, in addition to the SAF's mental health support systems, the SAF has measures to support NSFs who face psychosocial stressors that may impact their mental health. These NSFs are identified through various touchpoints during their service, such as the Basic Military Training, through surveys and regular commander interviews. Where needed, their commanders will provide them support or refer them to relevant services. These include the SAF's financial assistance schemes, counselling as well as rehabilitation services.

We recognise that NSFs with psychosocial needs may benefit from the larger social support system. The SAF collaborates with partners on additional avenues of support where appropriate. For example, it works with the Ministry of Social and Family Development's Social Service Offices, and the community network of Family Service Centres to help those with added needs. So, doing so ensures the continuity of support for our NSFs after they complete National Service (NS).

We encourage NSFs who require assistance to reach out to their commanders, the SAF Mental Health Office or the SAF counselling hotline.

Dr Haresh Singaraju.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I have two supplementary questions. One, from the perspective of a public healthcare doctor, and another from an SAF medical officer and commander.

At this juncture, many NSFs who do see us in public healthcare do raise concerns in terms of the social strains they face during these times, and we are aware of social partners that can offer such help. I wonder if we can strengthen the communication between public healthcare and that of the SAF during their NS time, such that we can inform the commanders that these are gaps that the NSFs are facing, and therefore the kind of avenues that we can refer these NSFs to.

And on the other front, as an SAF medical officer and commander, I recognise that there are avenues to support these NSFs, in terms of the various social issues they present with. But is such education provided during the commander training, or even during the medical officer courses, such that once we recognise these psychosocial stressors, in terms of who we can refer to within the SAF, as well as externally? Because from my understanding currently, it is not in the curriculum.

Thank you. On the first point, certainly, we welcome that. Today, with the Ministry of Social and Family Development and the social service offices, the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) is piloting Case Connect, where there is a direct link between our officers of medical health professionals as well the social service offices, in terms of being able to manage cases jointly. So, that is under pilot. But certainly, I will take it back to MINDEF to study how we can also integrate better with the public health system for professionals like yourselves, who can also provide feedback back into the system.

On the second one, let me check on this. Because generally, most of our unit commanders who oversee our NSF troops, for example, are trained and they do have schemes and mechanisms to support our NSFs – whether they have financial assistance requirements or whether there are external things that they may need, like rehabilitation services and counselling or family issues. We understand that there are different stressors, to which the unit commanders are charged to look after. And they have access to such schemes too.

However, I think one possibility is for the mental health professionals to also provide feedback to the unit.

But I take your point. Let us see how we can integrate this better and see how we can work this through in a more efficient way.

12 Ms Gho Sze Kee asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in light of the issues with GIRO deductions faced by parents following the closure of a student care chain (a) whether the Minister can clarify what safeguards exist within the GIRO framework to prevent duplicate or erroneous debits; and (b) whether the Ministry will review the framework to strengthen consumer protections, including mandatory pre-debit notifications and consumer set limits on variable deductions.

13 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in addition to the limits-per-transaction for GIRO deductions and safeguards against scams, whether MAS will consider requiring banks to allow customers to set optional limits on the number or cumulative amount of deductions per billing period for individual GIRO arrangements, so as to improve customer control against bad actors or technical failure in company payment systems.

14 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Government can provide information on (a) what due diligence checks are banks required to conduct when onboarding a corporate customer for GIRO billing; and (b) whether banks are required to have suspicious transactions alerts when a billing organisation deducts multiple GIRO transactions from a customer in a short time span.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I have your permission to answer Question Nos 12 to 14 together on today's Order Paper?

Please go ahead.

Sir, there are existing safeguards for the General Interbank Recurring Order (GIRO). Customers can set transaction limits on their GIRO payments. And banks also apply due diligence checks on GIRO billing organisations. These include checking that they are properly registered businesses and are not linked to any sanctioned or other criminal activities.

However, checks by banks may not always be able to prevent errors and potential misuse of GIRO. While such cases have been uncommon so far, we agree that the safeguards should be strengthened.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) is working with the Association of Banks in Singapore and member banks to strengthen safeguards. The review will consider measures including enabling customers to set monthly limits on the value and number of transactions and enhancing transaction monitoring and due diligence on billing organisations.

We will also consider suggestions by Ms Gho Sze Kee, Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Shawn Loh, and members of the public.

We also advise consumers to review their current GIRO arrangements and to set appropriate transaction limits with their banks and financial institutions.

There are also other non-GIRO payment options available to consumers including standing instructions to the bank for recurring monthly payments for an amount set by the customer.

Ms Gho.

I have one supplementary question. In the United Kingdom, the Bankers Automated Clearing Services operates widely used direct debit scheme that includes advance notice of payment amounts, a direct debit guarantee, allowing for immediate refunds in case of error and strong consumer recourse mechanisms.

So, in light of these established safeguards in other countries, could the Minister of State clarify whether Singapore's review of the GIRO framework would move towards incorporating such similar features?

Sir, I thank Ms Gho Sze Kee for her suggestion. Indeed, we will look into her suggestion and others as well.

I would say also that now, some of the banks have, for example, GIRO on-demand, where each deduction must be authorised individually before the bank processes the transaction. So, different banks have different ways either to implement safeguards or have different safeguards. But we will look into that suggestion. We will look into also setting monthly limits for transaction amounts and also, the value of transactions, and then, also, to enhance monitoring of transactions.

Mr Shawn Loh.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for the update. I am very heartened to hear it, that MAS has agreed to do a review because the current level of consumer protections are not adequate.

I have two questions. The first one is how long will this review take?

And my second question is, while the review is ongoing, can MAS also increase public awareness of the protections offered to consumers, as well as the limitations? So, today, you can only set a limit per transaction, but consumers are not protected because agencies or organisations can have multiple deductions within that transaction limit. So, can public awareness be increased prior to the review being completed?

Sir, indeed, MAS will work with the banks, as well as financial institutions to raise awareness and public awareness of these. And in the review, we will start with lower-hanging fruits. Some of these may be effected in the short term, but major enhancements which involve system changes will need some time to be developed, tested and implemented. But we accept and we will take his views into account.

Mr Melvin Yong.

Sir, I thank the Minister of State for his reply, and we are heartened. The Consumer Association of Singapore (CASE) will be happy to work with MAS on consumer protection measures.

For consumers, we often use GIRO when we want to so call, "set and forget", recurring payments. And therefore, we acknowledge that while there is convenience of using GIRO, it also comes with trade-off, including the possibility of fraud. Many consumers regard GIRO as a secure and convenient means of payment, and therefore, we must put in place the necessary safeguards.

I want to ask whether there are existing thresholds or guidelines for banks to therefore flag anomalous GIRO deduction patterns? If not, whether MAS intends to introduce such standards for the banks? Because when we do GIRO, we forget about it and we expect that the banks protect us by monitoring certain patterns.

Sir, I thank the CASE Chairman and Member Mr Melvin Yong for working with MAS to also raise awareness about the use of GIRO.

As he mentioned earlier on, GIRO has its uses. For example, if you were to pay your monthly electricity bills, this affords convenience, because the bills will fluctuate from month to month. But there are also some downsides, and that is why this review will take into account what he, Ms Gho and Mr Shawn Loh have suggested, and that includes also enhance monitoring of transactions as well.

15 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Manpower in view of the recent announcement by a food delivery platform company to exit Singapore market which affects workers’ livelihoods, (a) what protections are in place to support the affected workers; (b) whether platform companies are required to provide notice and transition assistance; and (c) whether additional measures will be introduced to strengthen redeployment and income support during such disruptions.

Mr Speaker, this question for oral answer has been addressed by written reply, to Question No 97 on the Order Paper for the 7 April 2026 Sitting. [Please refer to "Help for Delivery Riders Affected by Recent Exit of Food Delivery Platform Company", Official Report, 7 April 2026, Vol 96, Issue 27, to Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time section.]

Ms Yeo.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. Could the Ministry elaborate how the Government ensures that platform operators have clearer responsibilities to their workers in such situations, particularly in terms of data, transparency and workers communication? So that our workers can receive timely information on changes that will affect their livelihoods and so that they can make informed decisions early.

And also, in light of such exits, could the Ministry also clarify whether there are plans to put in place a more structured framework, including coordinated support across agencies and industries?

I recall for this particular case, we had our Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers' Association, as well as the National Delivery Champions Association from the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) coming in. But I do think that it would be good to have better coordination, so that there will be proactive matches to support our affected workers to alternative platforms or jobs.

And how do we ensure that the workers do not face prolonged income disruption, as well as hardship, and what kind of supports do we have for them during this transition?

I thank the Member for her two supplementary questions. To share more, platform operators and platform work associations should continue their bilateral discussions on the information that can be provided to workers. This has been done before, especially on the transparency of earnings and so on.

And to better guide these discussions, NTUC has led many of these discussions, for example, with platform work associations, major platform operators, to agree on a set of industry-wide and accepted principles, in terms of payment and incentive structures. Some of these things were discussed: for example, fair earnings, visibility on structural changes, incentive schemes. These were announced on 11 September 2025 by NTUC. So, I encourage NTUC to continue with these discussions and use these platforms to do it collaboratively.

On the second supplementary question, in this particular case, I want to share that the food delivery operator, had really worked closely with Workforce Singapore (WSG) and also NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute to step in to offer job matching capabilities and also career coaching in times of need.

The platform operator also worked, like what Member has mentioned, with the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers' Union and the National Delivery Champions Association to facilitate their outreach and transition. I thank the union and association for stepping up and working collaboratively with NTUC on this.

In addition, there will always be disruptions when there are transitions. The platform work associations, together with NTUC, should continue to help. There are schemes out there, for example, if a platform worker would like to transition to full-time employment or to a different platform, they can always approach WSG with a suite of capabilities, SkillsFuture, as well as the Career Conversion Programmes. For low-wage platform workers, they can also approach the social services office to help with financial assistance.

16 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Manpower in view of strong hiring demand for engineers and technology specialists alongside rising retrenchments among Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians (PMETs) reported in the annual job vacancies report, what are the key factors driving this mismatch in the labour market.

Mismatches in the labour market may be driven by shifts in skill requirements. For example, firms are expanding technology functions, driving sustained demand for jobs like AI engineers and engineering professionals, while restructuring other professional, manager, executive and technician (PMET) roles that have become easier to automate. Retrenched PMETs may lack the specific technical skills and experience to fulfil the requirements in in-demand engineering and technology specialist jobs.

Mr Yong.

Sir, I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary have we done a study on the profiles of those PMETs who have been retrenched and also, what are the types of jobs that the market is looking for? And whether the Ministry has any plans to improve our job matching and reskilling interventions, so that we can better align displaced PMETs with available roles in these new areas of engineering and technology?

And how does the Ministry then assess the effectiveness of such efforts to date, if they already exist?

I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. In fact, to better understand the hiring landscape today, the hiring demand for PMETs remains higher than the number of PMET retrenchments. And many of the in-demand PMET jobs are actually in finance and infocomm. As of December 2025, these two sectors had PMET vacancies of 4,100 and 5,300 respectively. Comparatively, there were only 960 PMET retrenchments across both sectors for the last quarter of 2025. And in these particular sectors, the PMET retrenchments remain low relative to entire workforce size, and there remain ample opportunities available.

To that point, the Government will always continue to provide support for workers to upskill and reskill into these roles. To the Member's second point, for the Workforce Singapore (WSG), for the Career Conversion Programmes, we support workers to reskill into growth jobs and into longer-term prospects by provision of salary support to the employers. Over the last three years we have placed over 7,300 workers into tech and engineering related jobs through these Career Conversion Programmes. So, I encourage them to take it up.

Dr Neo Kok Beng.

Thank you, Sir. I would like to ask: in the case of a professional conversion programme, especially for engineers and technologists who are retrenched, is it possible to propose for the WSG to work with professional institutions to design programmes that are directly relevant to the industry, rather than take up courses that are designed by the universities or the polytechnics?

I thank the Member. Can the Member repeat the question, please?

Yes, my question simply means that whether the Ministry or WSG will consider developing or working with professional institutions for those particular professions or trade to develop programmes that are relevant directly to the industries, rather than looking at programmes that are developed by the universities or the other academic institutions?

Yes, I thank the Member for the question. The answer is yes. In fact, the WSG does work very closely with the institutes of higher learning to make sure that these courses are industry relevant, especially for the professional societies.

17 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether HDB will exercise flexibility towards home buyers affected by earlier than expected BTO completion; and (b) whether HDB will consider (i) flexibility for the second downpayment timeline (ii) transitional support for young working adults or (iii) any other practical arrangements for buyers who face genuine difficulty because their flats are completed significantly earlier than projected.

In 2025, about 30% of Build-To-Order (BTO) blocks were completed earlier than their estimated completion dates at the point of flat booking. On average, these blocks were completed about two months earlier.

To assist the buyers with their planning and housing arrangements, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) notifies them at three junctures: one year before, six months before and three months before the expected completion of their flat. These include any updates to their flat’s probable completion date and the latest probable completion date is also available to buyers when they log into their accounts on the MyHDB Page.

When their flats are ready, buyers are required to collect their keys and pay the balance flat price within a month. Those who face difficulties due to early completions can approach HDB for assistance. HDB may provide key collection deferrals to buyers who need additional time to sell their existing flat or work out their financing arrangements.

Ms Poh Li San.

Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Senior Minister of State for her reply. I have a supplementary question on such an arrangement for existing flat owners who require back-to-back sale of their existing homes to finance their BTO flats. So, if there is an earlier-than-expected BTO readiness, they do not have sufficient time to sell the flat, especially in a down cycle market. Will HDB further extend beyond the usual six months period, to allow them a bit more time to do so?

I thank the Member for her question. Earlier, I mentioned in my reply that the HDB notifies buyers at three junctures. This is to give buyers adequate time to plan. And that is why it is at the one year before, six months before and three months before. So, this is to give them adequate time to plan for what they should do with their previous flat, their existing flat, as the Member mentioned.

But in situations where they are already in financial difficulty and are not able to match the back-to-back arrangements, HDB will step in to see how they can facilitate the arrangements so that both the buyers and the sellers, in this instance, can find an acceptable arrangement that works for the both of them.

18 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Ministry will introduce mandatory, centralised government security vetting for personnel with access to Singapore’s critical information infrastructure to mitigate insider threats; and (b) if not, how the Ministry ensures that current employer-led vetting of personnel, including foreign nationals, in sensitive technical roles is sufficiently robust against sophisticated state-sponsored cyber threats.

Mr Speaker, insider threats are just one of a multitude of threats facing our critical information infrastructure (CIIs). Under the Cybersecurity Act, owners of CIIs are required to put in place access management controls and processes to monitor for anomalies and suspicious activities in these systems. Upon detection of any unauthorised activity, CII owners are required to investigate such anomalies. These controls mitigate potential insider threats or any other threats.

The Government takes the cybersecurity of our CIIs very seriously. We will continue to review the standards we require and consider further enhancements that could be effective.

Mr Gerald Giam.

I thank the Minister for the reply. I am asking more in terms of dealing with the issue upstream, in terms of vetting personnel. And given that many technical experts in our telco and energy sectors are foreign nationals, what specific assistance does the Cyber Security Agency provide to private CII owners to verify the backgrounds of such individuals? And could the Ministry introduce a tiered vetting system, where personnel with super user or administrator access rights to our sensitive core areas of our CII must undergo Government-led G50 security clearance, just like public servants and vendors who access our Government systems?

Mr Speaker, if we are serious about mitigating against insider threats, we should not assume that any particular profile of someone who is able to access the system is more or less likely to commit nefarious activities. This is the first point I want to put across. You do not want to have a preconceived idea that this profile would necessarily be safer than another profile. If you want to be able to defend against as many insider threats as possible, you have to assume that every single person that has access to the system could pose an insider threat.

Second, we also do not assume that security vetting is a silver bullet. If a nefarious actor is determined to infiltrate the system and they know that there is a vetting process of some sort, then clearly, it would be an effort on their part to overcome whatever it is that would stand in the way of them clearing a vetting system. So, a vetting system is also not a silver bullet.

Thirdly, in cybersecurity, today we operate with the concept of zero trust, meaning that you decide in terms of how you architect the access controls, and you provide what is known as least privileged access, for every single one who has access to the system, you design the access controls in such a way that they only access what they are supposed to access in order to get the job done.

Then, you need to put in place a robust system so that you never trust, you always verify whether a user is accessing the part of the system that they should access.

Then, you need the system to monitor, to look at suspicious behaviour, whether there was a user that attempted to go beyond the access privileges that were granted. And you are very careful about who you provide more access to.

That is the approach that we take, rather than to think that just because we have done security vetting upstream, other controls are not as important; or since they have cleared vetting, then it is safe. We do not make that sort of assumption. Security by design means that you have all these multiple layers of defences in order to be able to guard against the cyber risk.

Mr Gerald Giam.

I thank the Minister for her reply. I agree that we should not assume any of these things and we should not assume that just because someone is security cleared, therefore they are safe to continue using the systems.

But in this age of cybersecurity threats and Advanced Persistent Threats (APTs), should we not consider that aligning the security clearance of our CII personnel, especially those with access to sensitive systems, with public servants? Because our all public servants have to go through this standard security vetting. Why not we extend that to CII personnel as well?

Mr Speaker, I think I addressed the Member's question, which is that where it is useful and relevant to do so for certain types of cybersecurity accesses, yes, we do have measures in place to ensure that the persons accessing them fit the right conditions and we have no concerns.

But we do not publicly reveal all the requirements that we put in place, and that is for obvious security reasons. Because if it was so plain, if you state it so clearly that there is this particular process and once you clear it, that is it. Then, that becomes the easiest thing to overcome.

So, I take the Member's point. It is not the case that there is no vetting. It depends on what the activity is.

19 Ms Gho Sze Kee asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth with rentals at Goodman Arts Centre set to increase significantly (a) what measures are being considered to help tenant artists cope; and (b) what longer-term plans are there to ensure that affordable creative workspaces remain accessible to arts practitioners.

Culture, Community and Youth): The National Arts Council (NAC) champions Singapore’s arts sector and recognises that arts infrastructure is key to the development of a vibrant arts ecosystem.

In land-scarce Singapore, NAC works closely with Government agencies and private sector players to unlock and diversify arts spaces. Today, the total arts gross floor area tracked by NAC currently stands at 94,000 square metres, which is a 42% increase since 2010.

Affordable workspaces are also key to ensuring our artists and arts groups remain financially sustainable. To support our arts sector, NAC provides such spaces at rates below commercial rental levels.

In considering the need for any rates adjustment, NAC takes into account rising operational costs for the maintenance of these spaces and the need to ensure that the revised rates remain affordable compared to other commercial spaces in the vicinity and other arts spaces.

The Goodman Arts Centre provides a total of 77 units across both short-term venues and longer-term housing options. This includes 26 Project Studios for flexible short-term tenancies of up to 12 months for artists who have project-specific needs and 51 units under the Framework for Arts Spaces scheme which supports arts groups up to nine years and is subvented by NAC at up to 80%.

The rental rates for Project Studios were last reviewed in 2012 and the Arts House Group, the appointed operator for the Goodman Arts Centre, has absorbed rising operational costs since then. Although the Arts House Group had begun to engage arts tenants on a rate increase for greater sustainability, it will defer rate increases in 2026 to support arts tenants during this period of heightened economic uncertainty arising from the conflict in the Middle East. NAC and the Arts House Group will review the rates at the end of this year for 2027.

In parallel, NAC is studying the sector's longer-term needs and has been engaging and consulting the arts sector on their spatial needs and affordability of arts spaces. In planning for the future, NAC will take steps to ensure that arts spaces remain accessible and affordable for artists and arts groups.

NAC also supports artists and arts groups through existing grants, such as the Creation Grant, Presentation and Participation Grant, which funds the creation, production and presentation costs of our artists and arts groups.

Ms Gho.

Sir, Mr Speaker, I note that the premises at the Goodman Arts Centre are ultimately Government-owned and leased to the Arts House Group, a non-profit under the NAC, which also operates other arts places such as the Aliwal Art Centre and the Stamford Art Centre. Given this, I would just like to ask if the other centres are facing similar cost pressures or viability challenges, and if so, whether there is a broader review under way to ensure that such government-supported creator spaces remain affordable and sustainable for arts practitioners over the long term?

I thank Ms Gho for her concern for the arts and the artists. Indeed, it is part of our commitment to provide affordable, accessible spaces for artists and arts groups.

We have announced last year that we are doing a study on how the arts spaces provision can be better improved and the study is ongoing. We will be sharing the findings and recommendations when we are ready.

20 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Minister for Social and Family Development given global uncertainties and sustained cost-of-living pressures on low-income families, (a) whether the income eligibility thresholds for financial assistance schemes will be reviewed to ensure they remain adequate; and (b) whether ComCare short-to-medium-term assistance quantum is periodically benchmarked against core inflation and if not, whether Ministry will consider doing so.

Mr Speaker, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) reviews the ComCare per capita household income benchmark regularly. The current gross monthly per capita household income benchmark of $800 and below is an indicative benchmark and not a qualifying criterion. Families who are above the benchmark but have valid needs may still be assisted with ComCare on a case-by-case basis.

The ComCare assistance rates are also regularly adjusted to ensure adequate support. The ComCare Short-to-Medium-Term assistance quantum accounts for projected inflation.

For cost-of-living concerns, there is also support in other forms, such as the Assurance Package, which has been enhanced with additional cash, U-Save, service and conservancy charge rebates, and Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers over the years.

MSF is monitoring the situation closely on how the low-income families are being impacted by the current economic situations and conditions. We are prepared to make adjustments as needed.

Mr Cai.

I thank the Minister of State for the clarification. My supplementary question is similar to the $200 cash disbursement for platform workers to cushion rising fuel prices. Can we also consider some immediate stopgap disbursement for ComCare recipients, especially those with young children who have very little buffers to begin with?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. Our reviews take into consideration data on expenditure for basic living needs, projected inflation and also views from social service professionals who work closely with our low-income families. The benchmark itself is not a criterion that automatically qualifies or disqualifies a household from ComCare. It approximates a gross monthly income at which households may qualify for assistance.

As mentioned in yesterday's clarification by my colleague, Minister of State Goh Pei Ming yesterday during the Ministerial Statement relating to the Middle East conflict, it was clarified that the ComCare assistance rates were reviewed only a year ago and MSF had already factored in some inflation assumptions so that the threshold is still within the buffer.

Besides this, there are also other general support and measures announced yesterday as well to provide enhanced support for Singaporean families, not just the lower-income households. For example, CDC vouchers of $500 will be brought forward to June 2026. The Cost-of-Living Special Payment has also been enhanced, and eligible Singaporeans can receive up to $400 to $600 in September 2026. For families who are on ComLink+, they are also eligible for the enhanced payout measures that have already been announced in this year's Budget and Committee of Supply.

The following question stood in the name of Ms Mariam Jaafar –

21 To ask the Minister for National Development in light of recent closures of small retail and food and beverage (F&B) shops in the heartlands (a) whether the Government has assessed how these closures affect neighbourhood vibrancy, social cohesion, and long-term community resilience; and (b) what concrete measures are being taken to sustain local commercial diversity.

Question No 21.

Vacancy rates for Housing and Development Board (HDB) rental shops have remained low and stable over the past five years. Some amount of churn is healthy, as it allows less competitive businesses to exit and new businesses to enter, which provide products and services that can better meet the needs of residents.

HDB uses trade mix controls for HDB rental shops to ensure a good variety of shops to serve residents. When there are vacancies, HDB will assess the trade designation and tender them out as soon as possible.

22 Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Government will make public a list of foreign organisations that may pose concerns to Singapore’s national security for awareness; and (b) if so, how frequently will the list and activities of such organisations monitored and reviewed.

23 Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what formal channels are available for Singaporeans to seek guidance before participating in overseas activities linked to foreign organisations; and (b) whether a centralised point of contact will be established.

24 Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Government will consider introducing advisories or requirements for Singaporeans intending to volunteer with foreign organisations; and (b) how will it calibrate the balance between mitigating security risks and ensuring practical compliance.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 22, 23 and 24?

Please proceed.

Today, the Government publishes lists of individuals and entities published for specific purposes related to national security. For example, certain foreign organisations designated as terrorist entities are listed in the First Schedule to the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act. There are no plans to make public a broader list of foreign organisations that may pose concerns to Singapore's national security. Such a list may give rise to operational and security risks.

Regular publicity and outreach efforts are conducted to raise public awareness of security threats, including from foreign organisations of concern such as foreign terrorist groups. We have also publicly stated that Singaporeans should not participate in foreign armed conflicts, and should exercise particular care in dealing with organisations with links to foreign militaries or foreign security and intelligence agencies.

There are also restrictions and responsibilities under various statutes such as the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act, in relation to membership in a foreign legislature or foreign political organisation, or the United Nations Act which includes prohibitions against providing technical advice, assistance or training to designated foreign persons, entities and organisations.

Where necessary, the Government will issue travel advisories on overseas developments that may have security implications.

Singaporeans should exercise due diligence and err on the side of caution when in doubt. It is ultimately every individual's responsibility to ensure that they comply with our laws and not act in a manner prejudicial to Singapore’s national interest.

Ms Hazlina.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the clarification. There was a lot of interest with regard to the two individuals who were found to be volunteering with an Israeli military-linked organisation that points to the interest and the requirement for increased awareness.

The Senior Minister of State earlier talked about awareness campaigns. Could we have a bit more colour and a bit more sharing on the partnerships, whether it is an inter-agency approach, whether it is an approach with community organisations or going upstream to schools? So that this awareness can go upstream and it is with clarity that we understand while we are looking for international experiences that national security is always a key concern.

Sir, we have a national movement to prepare Singaporeans against terrorism – SGSecure. This is one way through which we disseminate important information so that Singaporeans are aware of security risks.

Also, when there are cases that the Member Ms Hazlina has raised, we have also amplified existing messages through the media and ultimately, it is very important for Singaporeans to have a good grasp of what our national interests are. This is something that we have discussed repeatedly in this House.

25 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry will consider extending subsidies to parents for costs incurred at private speech and occupational therapy providers for autistic children; and (b) what measures are being taken to reduce the financial burden on middle-income families whose children require more intensive therapy sessions than those currently provided under the Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC).

The Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) funds both Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC), delivered by social service agencies, and EIPIC-P, delivered by appointed private providers. Means-tested fee caps are established to ensure that operators provide quality services at an affordable fee. A median income family pays up to $210 a month for EIPIC and $360 a month for EIPIC-P.

Both EIPIC and EIPIC-P programmes are delivered by a trans-disciplinary team of professionals including early intervention educators, speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, psychologists and social workers. Under these programmes, each child, including those with a confirmed or suspected autism diagnosis, has an Individualised Education Plan tailored to their developmental needs and goals. This plan is developed and regularly reviewed by early intervention professionals in consultation with Allied Health Professionals and families. Enrolled children typically receive five to 12 hours of intervention conducted over two or three sessions every week, with the frequency and duration of the sessions tailored according to the level of support the child needs.

Families may consult their early intervention professionals on their child's Individualised Education Plan to address the needs of the child. Parents who wish to seek supplementary intervention beyond those provided under EIPIC or EIPIC-P may also tap on the Child Development Account (CDA) to pay for additional early intervention services by early intervention providers registered with ECDA.

Mr Tan.

Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for his reply. Would the Ministry consider a tiered co-payment model for private providers similar to the EIPIC-P scheme where middle-income families can pay a regulated rate for a fixed number of additional private therapy hours to supplement their child's public intervention?

Two, given that EIPIC typically offers only two to four hours intervention weekly, many children may require additional private sessions. Would the Ministry consider allowing the use of the CDA funds for a wider range of accredited private therapies without depleting the basic EIPIC subsidy?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his question. I think there are two parts to his question. First, in terms of private providers, from ECDA's perspective, we strongly recommend that parents go with the list of service providers registered with ECDA. This is also the Government's way of regulating services and controlling costs. So, that is the first point.

And if there are gaps within the list provided by ECDA, based on what the Member has gotten feedback from, we will be open to reviewing it but, based on what we know, the list of service providers under ECDA's list is comprehensive, and we stand guided by what the Member has given as feedback.

Based on the number of hours that each child receives in terms of early intervention, it is based on what, like I mentioned earlier, the early intervention professionals meeting together with the families, taking into account all the professionals' inputs to deliver an individualised plan. And based on that plan, there is a certain guideline in terms of how many hours and what is the frequency, the dosage of treatment. I think that is what the professionals deem as required.

Sometimes, parents may choose to do even more, but that is not what the professionals would say are cardinal. Therefore, if parents choose to use additional sessions, they can use the CDA account funds to pay for those.

But what the individualised plan recommends is the requirement dosage based on professionals' input and based on the list of the providers that ECDA has engaged, all specialised services that are required will be fulfilled through that list and will be catered under the individualised plan.

Senior Parliamentary Secretary Shawn Huang, do you have a clarification to make?

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

With regard to Parliamentary Question No 16, I would just like to clarify that Career Conversion Programmes provide salary support to employers. Thank you. [Please refer to "Key Factors for Strong Labour Market Demand for Engineers and Technology Specialists, While PMETs Face Retrenchments", Official Report, 8 April 2026, Vol 96, Issue 28, Oral Answers to Questions section.]

Order. End of Question Time.

[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.]

Clarification by Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs.

Speaker, I would like to make a clarification in relation to a written answer that was made on 3 February 2026.

In response to a Parliamentary Question filed by Ms Valerie Lee on the number of traffic accidents linked to vape or drug abuse, I said in our response that between 2023 and 2025, 77 accidents were suspected drug and/or etomidate use, and that 25 of these were suspected of drug use. The remainder were suspected of etomidate use and two of these cases included suspected drug use. [Please refer to "Quarterly Statistics on Traffic Accidents from 2023 to 2025 Linked to Substance Use and Traffic Police Assessment Protocols for Such Cases", Official Report, 3 February 2026, Vol 96, Issue 15, Written Answers to Questions section.]

Sir, I would like to clarify for the record that 38 traffic accidents were linked to drug and/or etomidate use: 19 were drug cases, 12 were etomidate cases and seven involved were both drugs and etomidate. Thank you, Sir.

Order. Introduction of Government Bills.

[(proc text) "to establish the Skills and Workforce Development Agency, to repeal the SkillsFuture Singapore Agency Act 2016 and the Workforce Singapore Agency Act 2003, and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other Acts", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Dinesh Vasu Dash), on behalf of the Minister for Manpower, read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [7 April 2026], (proc text)]

[(proc text) "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." – [Minister for Sustainability and the Environment]. (proc text)]

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

Mr Yip Hon Weng.

Mr Speaker, Sir, today, as we debate the Bill, the world is being reminded how fragile energy security is. With the escalating war in the Middle East threatening the Strait of Hormuz, a lifeline for nearly one-fifth of global oil, volatile markets and rising prices are not distant news. They are our immediate reality.

We cannot control global supply, but we can control our dependence on it. As Chair of the Defence and Foreign Affairs Government Parliamentary Committee, I see energy security as inseparable from national security. Conservation is no longer just climate policy. It is essential cost-of-living and economic policy. Every watt we save is a watt we do not have to import for.

I support this Bill because it closes a critical gap. Today, our Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS) and Mandatory Energy Labelling Scheme (MELS) apply only to local suppliers, leaving goods imported directly for one's own use unregulated. A gap in policy becomes a liability in a crisis. It allows inefficient equipment to be locked into our system and lets those who bypass the rules undercut compliant businesses. Even if direct imports are less than 10% today, we must close this gap before it grows.

What we allow into our system today determines the bills we pay tomorrow. The principles of this Bill are sound, but its success depends on implementation. To ensure it works fairly and affordably on the ground, I have four areas of clarification.

First, Mr Speaker, Sir, affordability. We know that energy efficient products are cheaper over time. A commercial refrigerator can have lifecycle costs about 30% lower than a non-compliant one. However, most energy efficient products come with a premium. Households and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) do not live in lifecycle calculations. They live with immediate budgets and cash flow constraints.

Are we doing enough to help households and businesses bridge the gap between higher upfront costs and lower long-term savings? Are existing schemes such as the Climate Friendly Household Programme, the Energy Efficiency Grant and the Resource Efficiency Grant sufficient for those most affected?

If direct imports are currently less than 10%, what is the projected cost impact on households and SMEs when these amendments take effect? Will compliant models remain competitively priced, or will a persistent green premium emerge? How will the Ministry ensure that grants and subsidies remain responsive to market price fluctuations, so that no household or SME is left behind? The right choice must also be the affordable choice.

Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, consumer protection in the digital marketplace. The Bill empowers the Government to regulate online advertisements, require energy efficiency information and take down non-compliant listings. Will enforcement be proactive rather than reactive? Will platforms be required to screen listings before they appear, rather than only remove them after a breach is reported? Will consumers have a simple and accessible way to verify whether a product is compliant before making a purchase? If a non-compliant listing is removed after payment has been made, what protections will consumers have? Will marketplace operators be required to facilitate refunds or stop deliveries? How will responsibility be allocated among marketplace operators, sellers and importers? Consumer protection must begin before check-out, not after complaints.

Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, implementation and transition. The transition timeline is short. Three months may not be sufficient for households amid renovation, SMEs amid procurement, or businesses with goods already in transit. With the new requirements, importers must register goods, maintain records and potentially provide samples for testing. How onerous will these compliance requirements be, particularly for individuals and SMEs importing for their own use? If compliance is too complex, compliance will fail.

Fourth, Mr Speaker, Sir, transparency and proportionality. The Bill grants the Director-General the power to impose, modify, or revoke conditions even after registration. What principles will guide the exercise of these powers and will they be clearly communicated to businesses? Why do such decisions take effect immediately even when an appeal is filed? As new offences are introduced, including cases where goods are later used in ways that would have made the original import non-compliant, how will the Government distinguish between deliberate circumvention and genuine misunderstanding? Will the Ministry provide regular reporting to Parliament on waivers granted, appeals outcomes and enforcement trends? Strong powers must come with strong accountability.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is necessary but insufficient. Because energy conservation does not begin and end with regulation. The International Energy Agency has outlined practical measures to reduce demand quickly, including working from home, reducing unnecessary travel, improving driving efficiency and encouraging public transport use. The cheapest energy is the energy we do not use.

So, we must go further. Will the public sector lead the way by institutionalising air-conditioning temperature standards across Government buildings? Are we promoting operational efficiency across our fleets and industries, such as incentivising eco-driving certifications for commercial fleets? Does the Ministry have a playbook for temporary, targeted conservation measures, such as remote work arrangements or speed limit adjustments, should supply disruptions worsen? Because energy security is built not just by policy, but by behaviour, incentives and collective discipline.

We began this speech with a world in crisis, where conflict far beyond our shores can disrupt something as fundamental as energy. We cannot control that conflict. We cannot control global prices. We cannot control supply shocks. But we can control how we respond.

Today, I have asked four things. Whether this Bill will remain affordable. Whether consumers will be protected in the digital marketplace. Whether implementation will be fair during transition. And whether enforcement powers will be exercised transparently. I have also suggested that beyond regulation, we must act decisively to reduce demand and strengthen efficiency. Because if we get this right, energy conservation will not feel like a burden. It will feel like relief. Relief from rising costs, uncertainty and vulnerability.

And let us be reminded that this is not just an energy policy. It is a test of how we prepare Singapore for an uncertain world. Because in a world that we cannot control, the strength of Singapore will depend on what we choose to control, what we choose to conserve and what we choose to secure. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Foo Cexiang.

Mr Speaker, in today's world, the case for energy conservation could not be stronger. Many of us are familiar with MEPS as well as MELS. They facilitate choices towards more energy efficient appliances, such as refrigerators, televisions and air-conditioners. This Bill seeks to extend the METS and MELS requirements to importers of regulated goods, such as the appliances I mentioned earlier, including for those for own usage. This will ensure consistent application of the requirements, while also not overly restricting consumer choices.

I would like to raise a few points and seek clarifications from the Senior Minister of State.

First, I would like to highlight two clauses in the Bill.

Clause 7 of the Bill amends the Energy Conservation Act to require an importer of regulated goods for their own use to register the regulated good(s), “even if another importer has already so registered such regulated good(s)”.

Can the Senior Minister of State clarify why this is required? Is the intent to keep track of the identity and number of importers of the specific regulated goods, even if it has already been registered by an importer? Regardless, would the agency consider a more streamlined approach for subsequent importers of already registered regulated goods.

For example, can the agency update the specific model/type of regulated good(s) in its Database of Registered Goods for general awareness that it has been registered, and waive certain requirements for subsequent importers, such as the requirement to provide test reports, ISO certifications and so on, which would already have been provided by the original importer. This would reduce the regulatory burden for subsequent importers.

Next, clause 12 of the Bill amends the Energy Conservation Act such that the Director-General may require an individual importer of regulated goods for their own use to provide free of charge samples to the Director-General for the purpose of testing or analysis, and any other document that the Director-General requires.

It is quite likely that for importers who are importing for their own use to only import one piece of the good, so it could perhaps, be challenging for them to provide “free of charge” samples to the Director-General for the purpose of testing and analysis. So, I seek a clarification again on the need for this.

Next, I would also like to highlight two points in relation to the implementation of the amendments in the Bill.

First, the extension of the MEPS and MELS requirements to importers will likely rely on existing processes for the registration of the regulated goods. However, the existing processes, as I understand, are designed for suppliers, retailers, importers and manufacturers that supply or sell regulated goods. These are typically companies or businesses.

It is important therefore that the registration processes be modified or streamlined to be relevant for individual importers, including individuals or households that do the same. For example, the current Energy Labelling Scheme (ELS) Portal for registration relies on Corppass, which are for businesses and companies. It may also need to be adapted to allow for the use of Singpass by individual importers.

Second, the application for the registration of regulated goods involves fees that are chargeable between $70 and $85, depending on the type of regulated goods. I urge the agency to consider whether these charges for individual importers can be waived or whether there can be a tiered registration system. Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.

Senior Minister of State Janil.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank Members for their support, their questions and their comments on the Bill. All the Members who have spoken had indicated their support for the Bill and its intent to extend MEPS and MELS to regulated goods imported by end users for own use.

In answering their questions and comments, I would like to begin by clarifying that only certain common appliances, such as air-conditioners and refrigerators are covered under the Energy Conservation Act and this Bill. As mentioned in my opening speech, equipment, such as electric vehicles chargers, are not currently covered under the Energy Conservation Act and National Environment Agency's (NEA's) website has a list of regulated goods.

The volume of regulated goods imported for own use is small for now especially when we consider appliances, such as air-conditioners and refrigerators. The concern is that this could increase over time given the proliferation of online marketplaces, making it easier for consumers to import such regulated goods for their use. We have also noticed that some businesses are also directly importing regulated goods, such as commercial storage refrigerators, for their own use. And so, that is part of the need to introduce the Energy Conservation (Amendment) Bill to ensure a level playing field for both users and suppliers of regulated goods in Singapore, many of which are SMEs, and which are already complying with the Energy Conservation Act and for us to also improve our overall energy efficiency in Singapore.

Several Members have asked about the Government's plans to reduce compliance burden for end users arising from the proposed amendments and have made suggestions to streamline the registration process and user journey, such as waiving test report requirements for regulated goods if these Goods had been demonstrated to be MEPS-compliant by prior importers.

Sir, the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment and NEA have conducted public consultations regarding the proposed amendments. The stakeholders we have consulted, which range from local suppliers of regulated goods, businesses and technical experts from our institutes of higher learning have all been broadly supportive of the proposed amendments. They have also provided feedback to reduce the compliance requirements and ensure practicality for end users and we have incorporated their feedback into this Bill.

For example, we have excluded lights from the Bill because regulating them will impose a disproportionate compliance burden on end users, such as households that occasionally import a few lights. Lights are less energy intensive compared to other regulated goods and typically consumer 10 times less energy than appliances, such as refrigerators, and constitute less than 6% of household energy consumption. We will continue to monitor the import of lights for own use and if needed, explore the extension of regulations to cover such imports.

Sir, the new compliance requirements are not expected to be onerous.

Currently, local suppliers are subject to a registration fee of about $70 per model to register their models for local supply with NEA. We have taken in the feedback to reduce the compliance burden on end users who are importing regulated goods for their own use, and they typically cannot spread the registration costs across multiple units. So, therefore, the registration and renewal fees on end users who import regulated goods for their own use will be waived.

Similar to local suppliers, all end users importing the regulated goods for own use will be required to register them with NEA to demonstrate the MEPS and MELS compliance, regardless of whether another importer or manufacturer has registered such goods. The reason for this is, there needs to then be an assignment of responsibility for the act of importing this particular good and that this particular report matches the good as declared. And so, it is the person who is conducting the import for own use who has to take on that responsibility. NEA can accept test reports provided by equipment manufacturers for registration of regulated goods. Suppliers and end users are not required to obtain additional independent test reports beyond those provided by the equipment manufacturers for registration.

To avoid incurring unnecessary import costs, end users are also encouraged to register their regulated good prior to import to ensure that the good is MEPS- and MELS-compliant. As I have previously explained, to do so prior to import incurs no cost for the end user importing for their own use. We will continue to review and streamline the registration process as needed.

NEA will upgrade the ELS Portal for a better user experience for those applying to register their appliance. End users will be able to use Singpass, similar to how businesses currently use Corppass to access the ELS Portal and register. NEA will provide more information in due course.

Mr Foo Cexiang highlighted challenges for individuals and households in providing free samples of the regulated goods imported for own use, which the Director-General may require under clause 12 of the Bill for the purpose of testing or analysis. The Act does provide levers for NEA to obtain samples to, such as in the case of a business that may bulk import regulated goods for their own use. But I would like to assure Mr Foo and Members of the House that testing analysis is only conducted on regulated goods on a needs-basis and only where it is feasible to do so.

Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Muhaimin Malik asked about the Government's approach to allow the Director-General to exercise powers to impose, modify or revoke conditions after registration and the approach for appeals. I would like to assure Members that the Government would only invoke these powers only on a needs-basis and a reasonable time period will be accorded for the review, allow for rectifications and to process the appeals.

There will be instances where the Government would require swift rectifications to prevent the further circulation or further sale of non-compliant regulated goods. As set out in clause 7 of the Bill, the Director-General must, before imposing or modifying any condition for registration, give written notice to the holder of the registration stating the proposed condition or modification, and provide time for the holder of the registration to make written representations with regard to the proposed modifications. The Act also expressly allows any importer or manufacturer aggrieved by the decision to file an appeal to the Minister.

Mr Dennis Tan asked how the Government would ensure regulated goods would remain MEPS-compliant after import, particularly those controlled by the manufacturers or third parties through software embedded within the regulated goods.

To balance the regulatory burden and energy efficiency outcomes, we have adopted a practical approach to apply MEPS and MELS requirements at the point of import only for own use, similar to the current regulations that apply requirements at the point of local supply. And I would emphasise this point that this is the regime that is in place currently for local suppliers, and the opportunities and hypotheticals that Mr Dennis Tan had provided within the speech potentially exist today, but they do not appear to be a material problem at this point. Nevertheless, we will continue to monitor the situation and if NEA has information that approved regulated goods have low energy efficiencies during actual operation, we will investigate, conduct additional tests and audits and follow-up as necessary.

SMEs may import regulated goods for own use through intermediaries, such as contractors or interior designers. In such cases, it is the intermediary importing the regulated goods for subsequent supply to the SME that would be responsible for compliance.

Like all other end users directly import regulated goods for their own use, franchisees must ensure that the regulated goods that they import for their own use comply with the MEPS and MELS requirements.

NEA will issue press releases and circulars to inform end users and businesses about the new regulations and will also engage key stakeholders, including the food and beverage businesses through industry associations, such as the Restaurant Association of Singapore, to ensure that businesses and industries understand the new regulations and their responsibilities. NEA will also conduct checks on business establishments as needed, and conduct enforcement in response to whistle-blowing reports.

We have assessed that there is no need to introduce controls at the point of import at this time. So, the questions around Singapore Customs, and the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority, we have assessed that there is no need for these types of controls at this point. The number of regulated goods imported for own use is expected to be small. And if there were such controls as some Members have asked, they would apply to all regulated goods imported for local supply or own use. This potentially increases the administrative burden, friction and compliance costs for the importers significantly. And today, the vast majority of regulated goods brought into Singapore meant for local supply are already MEPS- and MELS-compliant. What we are trying to do is close the loophole for a small number of goods.

The proposed amendments will empower the Minister to make regulations to compel online platforms in Singapore to remove or rectify listings of non-compliant listings of regulated goods. This ensures that the non-compliant regulated goods, such as those that do not carry the MELS labels, are not offered to end users in Singapore. The actual operationalisation of removal of these listings will be done by the platform. It is NEA providing an enforcement instruction and it is the platform then will have to comply about how these are taken down. Consumers can verify compliance by checking for accompanying MELS labels when purchasing regulated goods through online platforms.

The new regulations will only apply to new regulated goods imported into Singapore, for the purposes of own use. The new regulations also exclude second-hand or used regulated goods, whether it is online or in the physical marketspace. Notwithstanding this, second-hand regulated goods imported into Singapore for resale as brand-new will be subject to the MEPS and MELS requirements. NEA will conduct surveillance and investigations to enforce compliance as required.

We intend to effect the new regulations from 1 July 2026 to give platform operators time to adjust to the new regulations. Since 2023, NEA has also been engaging online platforms, such as Shopee and Lazada, to remove advertisements of non-compliant goods. The online platforms engaged have also cooperated with NEA's instructions and have taken down the non-complaint listings accordingly.

Moving forward, we will continue to work closely with online platforms to enhance surveillance of the online space and to encourage the proactive removal of listings of non-compliant regulated goods. The platforms may implement manual or algorithmic systems at their discretion to proactively remove these listings. If NEA discovers online listings that are non-compliant, we will work with the platforms to manually remove such listings. We hope this will minimise the purchase of non-compliant regulated goods, unintended or otherwise, by individuals and households.

We have assessed the accompanying penalty framework to be a sufficient deterrent. Penalties will be imposed on a per-import basis, with fines of up to $10,000 per import of non-compliant goods for own use. The MEPS-compliant equipment delivers life-cycle energy savings compared to energy inefficient equipment and this actually already intrinsically incentivises end users to import compliant equipment. So, the risk of reputational damage from the legal proceedings also discourages businesses from importing non-compliant goods. Put all of that together, we think this is likely to be quite effective.

A penalty framework on a per-import basis is also consistent with penalty regimes in similar legislation, including the Environmental Protection and Management Act 1999, which imposes a fine not exceeding $10,000 for each contravening supply or import of non-compliant greenhouse gas goods, such as commercial chillers.

Members had asked how the Government would provide support to businesses and households to adopt more energy-efficient equipment and to build energy management capabilities. We have a suite of measures that businesses and households can tap on to strengthen their energy resilience. Companies can tap on the Energy Efficiency Grant to co-fund investments in energy-efficient equipment. The Energy Efficiency Grant already covers a wide range of regulated goods, including air-conditioners, refrigerators, clothes dryers, motors and water heaters today.

As announced by the Senior Minister of State for Finance, the Energy Efficiency Grant base tier has been expanded to all sectors and support will be extended for another year, to 31 March 2028. This is a part of the measures to support more businesses in purchasing energy efficient equipment through the increasingly uncertain global climate. I encourage businesses to use the Energy Efficiency Grant to adopt more energy efficient equipment.

For households, the Government has provided eligible households with $400 of Climate Vouchers in total over the last two Budgets, under the enhanced Climate Friendly Households Programme. This helps to offset the initial cost of purchase of more resource-efficient household appliances and fittings, which are expected to yield recurring energy and water savings over their lifespan. Households that have yet to use their $400 Climate Vouchers can do so up to 31 December 2027.

More recently, we expanded the list of products under the enhanced Climate Friendly Households Programme to include induction stoves and five-tick clothes dryers. From 15 April 2026, households can tap on Climate Vouchers to access a wider range of resource-efficient products and achieve greater resource efficiency.

We do also want to invest in the development of a pipeline of energy management professionals to support energy efficiency initiatives. Mr Lee Hong Chuang suggested that the Government strengthen cooperation between industry and higher education institutions to develop more professional courses in energy efficiency and energy management. The Member would be pleased to hear that this is already happening and that the Government has programmes in place to help businesses build a pipeline of energy management professionals to support our resource efficiency initiatives.

For example, in February 2026, NEA, the Singapore Institute of Technology and the Energy Efficiency Training Centre launched the new Energy Efficiency Training Facility. This supports the delivery of programmes, such as the Energy Efficiency Upskilling Programme and Singapore Certified Energy Manager Programme, to develop a pipeline of local energy management talent and to build local energy efficiency capabilities.

Members made several suggestions to strengthen public education and incentivise the adoption of compliant goods and were concerned about the cost impact to end users when the amendments take effect.

NEA maintains an online database of compliant regulated goods with product information, including estimated annual energy consumption and energy costs. Energy efficient appliances typically offer lower life-cycle costs through energy savings, even if they may have higher upfront capital costs. For example, life-cycle costs of MEPS-compliant commercial storage refrigerators are on average 30% lower than non-compliant models.

Mr Speaker, Sir, energy efficiency is an economic imperative that strengthens our energy resilience, that delivers cost savings for consumers and businesses and contributes to our national climate targets. The Energy Conservation (Amendment) Bill is a necessary step to ensure that all regulated goods in Singapore are held to the same MEPS and MELS requirements and deliver greater energy efficiency outcomes for end users.

I thank all Members who have spoken for their support on the Bill and with this, Mr Speaker, I seek to move.

Clarifications for Senior Minister of State Dr Janil? Ms Poh.

Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Senior Minister of State Janil. I believe my questions in my speech were not addressed in the Senior Minister of State's reply. I asked at the end of my speech, regarding the food and beverage sector alone, with the large numbers of restaurants and food and beverage establishments in the high churn, there must be a lot of freezers, chillers, refrigerators; and what would be the estimated annual consumption, and with this transition to all MEPS-compliant equipment, what will be the reduction like, in terms of the energy savings?

And secondly, with these large numbers of end users and end equipment, what is the process that is needed to actually enforce this new requirement? And I hope that this process and the requirements will not be too onerous. Otherwise, it will just end up conserving energy on one part and expending more energy in terms of human resources to carry out the enforcement.

Sir, I thank Ms Poh for her question. The answer to the first part is, we do not yet know because the extension of the Energy Conservation Act is to goods that are currently not regulated. So, we have engagements with the sector, with the restaurant association, we have information that the behaviour is happening. But until we regulate these goods, we will not have a handle on exactly how many there are coming into the space. So, at a future time, we should be in a better position then to think about what is the total estimated annual consumption to include what, today, would have regulated and unregulated goods.

And so, the reduction in energy savings, we can make an estimate, and we have estimated that there is about a 30% reduction in costs and over a life-cycle of the compliant good compared to a non-compliant good. So, is that overall energy reduction in the sector? I think we cannot draw a straight line because it is not the only consumption of energy within the sector. But the short answer is, the current issue is that we do not regulate the goods that we are going to regulate, and so we do not know exactly how many there are on the market.

The second part of the question that this involves a large number; actually, this is not the case. Today, most of the businesses involved are already engaged with MEPS- and MELS-compliant suppliers and are already involved with purchasing from the suppliers. The suppliers are already MEPS- and MELS-compliant. So, it is a not a huge number that will have to then come on to the scheme.

We have engaged with those that we can find and we have worked with them to then shape the operations of the scheme to ensure that it is not too onerous, as I described in my speech.

Mr Dennis Tan.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just one clarification for the Senior Minister of State. I thank the Government for acknowledging the gap regarding the software-driven energy degradation and for the commitment to monitor and test when necessary. However, if a software update is found to significantly degrade the energy performance of hardware already in use, what specific enforcement action will NEA take? Specifically, would the registration of those regulated goods be retrospectively revoked and would this result in a mandate for the user to cease usage or for the manufacturer to force a software roll-back?

Sir, this is a hypothetical situation that we have not encountered yet. The Act provides for the Director-General and NEA to exercise a range of measures should they come across a good, which is non-compliant or which was declared to be compliant and is now subsequently non-compliant. And that can arise for a number of reasons. Software modification is one, but physical hardware modification is also another.

The assessment would have to be made as to whether the problem was rectifiable. This goes to an earlier question about the time that was given and the actions that are taken, and if the problem was rectifiable, then a reasonable period of notice, together with instructions to rectify. Failing which, warnings and fines, all are possible.

Whether the action would be taken against the person who imported or the manufacturer, the answer is potentially both, because now that you know that this business or this person may have deliberately done it, we would have a higher level of scrutiny. If we are aware that a particular model or particular manufacturer may engage in such practices, when further models from that manufacturer are submitted for review and registration, certainly, we would have to take this into account. And so, we would have a range of possible responses to such behaviour.

But I would encourage businesses and end users, please do not engage in such behaviour. The intent of these regulations is to improve our energy efficiency and by doing so, we will end up lowering the costs for all the businesses and the households that are involved, and that is the important outcome that we want to achieve.

Looks like there are no further 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. – [Dr Janil Puthucheary]. (proc text)]

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

Minister for National Development.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for National Development, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the Veterinary Practice Bill establishes a new professional regulatory body, the Veterinary Council, to register veterinarians, or vets, and to regulate the practice of veterinary medicine in Singapore.

Today, vets in Singapore are licensed under the Animals and Birds Act (ABA). This framework has served us well in safeguarding animal health and welfare, and in protecting human health from animal diseases. However, our vet sector has evolved and matured significantly. Our pet population and demand for vet services have grown. Over the last two decades, the number of licensed vets has increased by more than five-fold. There are close to 700 licensed vets as of end-2025.

The range and sophistication of vet services and treatment have also expanded. In particular, there has been a rise in the number of vet specialists and breadth of vet specialisations available here in Singapore, offering specialised surgical and medical services. Public expectations of professional standards and accountability have also risen.

And against this backdrop, the Ministry of National Development (MND) and the National Parks Board (NParks) had signalled the move to establish a Vet Council in 2023 to oversee professional matters for the vet sector. Coupled with a robust professional regulatory framework, this aims to raise professional standards and uphold public confidence in our vet sector.

In drafting this Bill, we conducted extensive consultation with the vet sector, sought views from the public and studied models governing other human healthcare professions in Singapore and those of reputable vet statutory bodies in other jurisdictions, including Australia, Hong Kong and the United Kingdom (UK).

Let me now elaborate on the Bill's key features.

Part 1 lays out the fundamentals of the Bill. Clause 2 defines the practice of veterinary medicine, which comprises the range of professional activities regulated by the Bill. Clause 3 defines who is regarded as a duly qualified vet.

While only vets are required to be registered at the outset, we plan to eventually extend regulation to other veterinary professionals, such as vet nurses who are currently not licensed, with an appropriate transition period to allow the sector to adjust. We will share more details when ready.

Part 2 of the Bill establishes the Vet Council and sets out its functions in Clause 5. This includes registering vets, setting standards for professional conduct and requirements for upskilling and appointing necessary bodies for disciplinary proceedings against the misconduct and negligence of vets.

Clause 4 provides for the Council's composition, which will comprise a mix of public and private sector members. This may include ex officio members, comprising the Director-General for Animal Health and Welfare who is a public officer, and the elected president of the Singapore Veterinary Association or their nominees and the appointed Registrar of the Council. The Registrar will be a public officer or an officer or employee of a public authority. The Council will also comprise at least four other vets and at least two other non-vets. Members will serve a maximum term of three years and may be re-appointed. The Minister for National Development will have powers to appoint and remove members, while taking into account the Council's prevailing operating needs.

Clause 13 empowers the Council to appoint committees, which will advise the Council on nascent issues, such as reviewing the Code of Ethics for Veterinarians to provide up-to-date standards on professional conduct.

Besides providing fair and adequate representation of the vet sector, which was a key feedback we received during our engagements, we also designed this framework to safeguard public interests. It will ensure that professional regulation is grounded in practical experience with appropriate public oversight while addressing emerging issues faced by the sector.

Part 3 of the Bill sets out structured registration and practising certification frameworks for vets. Clauses 17 to 19 provide for the registration of vets under three classes of registration, to better differentiate a vet's foundational qualification, training and practice experience. Clause 24 requires the Registrar to publish on the Council's website, certain particulars of the registered vets. This enables the public to search for and verify a vet's registration status and place of practice.

Let me elaborate on the three classes of vet registration. First, full registration. This is for vets who either hold a prescribed qualification or hold a qualification in veterinary medicine that is not lower in standing than the prescribed qualification and possess the necessary knowledge, skill and experience. The prescribed qualifications mirror the Animal and Veterinary Service's (AVS's) current licensing criteria, which are accredited by well-established accrediting organisations.

The second class is vets with restricted registration. Vets with restricted registration will be subjected to certain restrictions, such as to practise only under the supervision of vets with full registration or in specific establishments. These vets must hold a qualification in veterinary medicine that does not qualify for full registration but has provided them with adequate training. They must also possess the necessary knowledge, skill and experience, and must be selected for employment in establishments recognised by the Council, such as the zoo or research institutes. This allows the Council to address manpower gaps in niche domains of practice, without compromising animal health and welfare or public confidence in the sector.

The third class of registration is specialist registration. This is for vets with full registration who additionally hold an approved postgraduate qualification or have acquired special knowledge, skill and experience in a particular branch of vet medicine. Such vets will be allowed to use specialist titles, such as vet ophthalmologist or vet pathologist.

A full or restricted registration has no expiry but may be cancelled by the Registrar or Council on any relevant grounds set out in clauses 26 and 38, or Part 5 of the Bill. A specialist registration is subject to renewals by the Council.

To ensure vets continually improve and update their knowledge and skills, registered vets must also obtain a practising certificate from the Council to practise veterinary medicine. Vets must regularly renew their practising certificates and fulfil mandatory continuing professional education requirements. These requirements ensure ongoing competency, and are already in place today for AVS-licensed vets. The Council will provide more clarity on these requirements when ready. With these new frameworks, the public can be better informed of a vet's professional standing and competency.

To minimise disruption to the sector and to ensure continuity of vet services, clause 90 will provide an arrangement for all AVS-licensed vets to transit to the new framework seamlessly. Existing vets holding a licence under the ABA will be temporarily deemed to be duly qualified vets. For instance, the majority of existing vets will be placed on full registration as they currently hold a full licence. Existing vets will then need to obtain registration and a practising certificate within a stipulated grace period to continue practising veterinary medicine.

The Bill also ensures that services provided by certain non-vets will not be disrupted. For instance, clause 29 does not prohibit vet nurses from practising veterinary medicine so long as they act under the supervision of a duly qualified vet and in accordance with prescribed conditions, as they do today.

As we have observed a growth in the range of animal-related services offered by non-vets that may pose a risk to animal health and welfare, Part 4 of the Bill will introduce various offences and penalties to safeguard against unlawful practice and misrepresentation by or about unauthorised persons. The Bill will raise the maximum financial penalty to $50,000 – a $4,000 increase compared to the current level of $10,000 provided under the ABA. [Please refer to ​"Clarification by Minister of State for National Development", Official Report, 8 April 2026, Vol 96, Issue 28, Correction By Written Statement section.] This strengthens deterrence against profit-driven motives and was benchmarked with penalties applicable in human healthcare professions.

Apart from prohibiting unauthorised persons from practising veterinary medicine or falsely implying that they are vets and qualified to act as a vet, it will also be an offence for other persons, such as business owners and employers, to make false claims that their employee is qualified. The prohibition of the practice of veterinary medicine by unauthorised persons garnered strong support from stakeholders and the public. It also aims to better assure the public that their animals are receiving treatment from duly qualified vets.

Part 5 of the Bill introduces a robust disciplinary framework for vets, which is designed to be proportionate and impartial. Clauses 44 and 45 establish clear thresholds for escalating disciplinary cases brought against registered vets, whereby the Registrar will first triage a case against a registered vet before recommending to the Council on the action to be taken.

The Registrar can recommend dismissing the case if the complaint is frivolous, so vets are not unduly burdened by unmeritorious cases. If there is evidence of physical or mental health issues which impair the vet's fitness to practise, the Registrar can recommend the Council to cancel, suspend or impose conditions or restrictions on the vet's registration with the vet's agreement.

The Registrar may also recommend to the Council to refer the case to various committees, which are the (a) Complaints Assessment Committee to review the conduct of or services provided by the vet; (b) Disciplinary Committee if the vet has been convicted of an offence involving fraud, dishonesty or implying a defect in character; and (c) Interim Orders Committee to review whether to make an interim order against the vet pending inquiry into the case.

This approach ensures proportionality to the issue at hand. Committee Members will be drawn from either a Complaints Panel appointed by the Council or from both the Complaints Panel and the Council. The intent is for a wider pool of experienced vets to be part of the committees to contribute their clinical perspective. A Complaints Assessment Committee must include a layperson, and a Disciplinary Committee must include two laypersons, namely a legal professional and an observer, to represent public interest and ensure accountability. Members involved at earlier stages of a disciplinary case must not sit on a subsequent committee for the same case. These safeguards mitigate potential conflicts of interest and ensure impartiality in reviewing disciplinary proceedings.

I will highlight next, key actions or orders that may be taken by the different committees. For minor complaints, clause 50 allows the Complaints Assessment Committee to recommend referring a case for mediation by an appointed mediator. This is one of the key features which promotes conciliatory mediation and conciliatory resolution. This may be applied to cases involving miscommunication between vets and their clients and allow for both parties to reach a resolution through facilitated dialogue.

For more egregious cases of misconduct or negligence, clause 56 empowers the Disciplinary Committee to take stronger disciplinary action against a vet, including cancelling or suspending a vet's registration or practising certificate, and imposing a penalty of up to $50,000, which is aligned with that for the human healthcare professions.

As these inquiries may take time, clause 66 empowers the Interim Orders Committee to either suspend or impose conditions or restrictions on a vet's registration for a period not exceeding 18 months while disciplinary proceedings are ongoing. Cases where such interim orders may be needed include those involving serious or immediate risks to public or animal health. Interim orders allow for swift responses to protect or secure certain interests, while disciplinary proceedings are ongoing. Clause 71 provides that interim orders will cease to be in force either at the end of the period specified in the order, when the order is revoked or when disciplinary proceedings conclude.

Clauses 51, 52, 62 and 70 provide a mechanism for appeals against certain decisions of the Council or its committees to be heard. The Minister will hear appeals against the Council's decisions. The General Division of the High Court will hear appeals against the Disciplinary Committee or the Interim Orders Committee's orders.

This disciplinary framework broadly aligns with that for the human healthcare professions and aims to uphold public confidence in the vet sector.

Lastly, Part 6 of the Bill provides powers for the Council to make regulations on qualifications for registration, continuing professional education requirements and professional standards. The Minister's approval must be sought when regulations are made by the Council.

Sir, we will commence the Bill in two stages, starting with establishing the Veterinary Council this year, followed by the remaining provisions of the Bill, including the registration regime and disciplinary framework for vets next year. This will give the sector sufficient time to adapt to the Bill's requirements and to strengthen their processes. We will share more details in due course.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we need highly skilled and professional vets in our evolving pet landscape. This Bill marks an important milestone in the maturation of our vet sector. It will strengthen professional accountability, support better animal health and welfare outcomes and uphold public confidence in the sector. The Vet Council will benefit the veterinary profession, which has provided support for the Bill. It will lead to better treatment outcomes to better safeguard animal health and welfare. It will also benefit the public who can be more assured of the competency and quality of veterinary services, and better veterinary-client relationships. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

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

Mr Henry Kwek.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. This is a timely and necessary move. As the pet population in Singapore grows and as vet care becomes more complex, it is right that we strengthen professional standards, clarify the scope of regulated vet services and put in place a robust disciplinary framework. I support the direction of the Bill.

At the same time, I would like to raise one central concern on behalf of many pet owners, which is: how do we strengthen professionalism in the sector while ensuring that vet care remains affordable and accessible?

For many Singaporeans, pets are not incidental. They are part of the family. This is especially so in an ageing society, where pets can be an important source of companionship, comfort and emotional support. To many people, their pet is a source of joy, comfort and, sometimes, their daily, closest companion.

So, as we improve standards and professionalise the sector, we must exercise care that the new rules, guidelines and expectations do not unintentionally drive up the cost of care. Put simply, caring for a cat or dog or any pet must not be the preserve of the wealthy.

Sir, I do not say this to pre-judge the work of AVS or the future Vet Council. I support the direction of this Bill. But because affordability matters so much for the ordinary pet owners, it is important we state this concern early and watch implementation carefully.

With that in mind, I would like to make a few suggestions and seek several clarifications.

First, while the Veterinary Council is a useful and necessary institution, its role under the Bill is primarily to regulate professional standards, registration, conduct and discipline. My suggestion, therefore, is that MND and AVS make clear and affordable and accessible animal care be an important part of the policy objective in how this framework is implemented, including the development of standards, codes and requirements over time. In other words, as standards are raised, affordability should not be treated as an afterthought.

Second, I suggest that the Council, or one of its committees, should have a stronger channel for the voice of the animal welfare and pet owner interests. This could be done either through including one or two individuals with strong standing in the animal welfare community, or through a dedicated advisory committee on affordable and accessible animal care. This would help ensure that the system does not only hear from providers but also remain attentive to the lived realities of pet owners.

Third, I would encourage AVS to begin tracking broad trends in the cost of veterinary care and to share this regularly with the Committee and the Council. I am not suggesting anywhere as elaborate as the healthcare sector's fee benchmark or procedure-by-procedure guidelines. But some basic monitoring of care and costs of care would be helpful.

Without data, we will not know whether the improvements in standards are being achieved in a way that remains sustainable for ordinary Singaporeans. And if care rises in the years ahead, we should at least be able to distinguish between whether it is driven by inflation, manpower costs, or more advanced treatment norms, or regulatory and professional requirements.

Fourth, I would like to seek clarification on the disciplinary and appeals framework. I agree that veterinarians must be held accountable for misconduct and negligence, and I support having meaningful powers to act against serious wrongdoing. But we should also ensure that the process do not inadvertently encourage frivolous complaints because that can have real consequences.

If professionals feel constantly exposed to weak but career-threatening complaints, they may respond by practising defensive medicine, over-ordering procedures or face higher professional indemnity costs. And in the end, these costs may be passed to pet owners.

So, I appreciate clarifications from MND on how the framework will guard against misuse while preserving confidence and fairness for complainants. I note that the Bill allows frivolous or misconstrued complaints to be dismissed, and I welcome that. I also welcome the inclusion of mediation. These are sensible features. But it would be helpful to understand whether AVS expects to publish workflows, aggregate data or guidance over time, so that both the public and the professionals can have confidence that the process is balanced, transparent and not easily abused.

Fifth, as the Council develops codes, standards and professional expectations, I hope there will be deliberate attention on practical and tiered care options. In concrete terms, financially stretched pet owners should still be able to receive clear advice upfront on what constitutes a basic, safe and affordable course of treatment, as distinct from more comprehensive or more advanced options.

Likewise, when an animal is gravely ill and recovery is unlikely, owners should not be left without an affordable and dignified path, including euthanasia where appropriate for the animals. Different owners will make different choices and many will want the best and most extensive treatment possible for their animals. That is entirely understandable. But a well-functional system should always and be able to make room for realistic, humane and affordable options.

Sixth, I urge some caution before we expand on the regulatory regime to other veterinary professionals and allied animal-care providers. The intent is clearly well-meaning, and I understand that this may eventually be necessary. But I hope we at least first observe how the establishment of the Veterinary Council affects the sector, especially in terms of manpower, service delivery and cost, before extending regulation more widely.

And finally, I hope that MND and AVS initiate a serious effort to examine the broader cost of caring for animals in Singapore, to ensure that care remains affordable and accessible. These issues may sit outside the four corners of this Bill, but it sits very much within the concerns of pet owners. Many residents, volunteers and animal lovers active within my constituency of Kebun Baru, including myself, would be happy to contribute to such an engagement on affordable and accessible pet care.

Sir, in conclusion, the formation of this Veterinary Council and this Bill is the natural next step in the evolution of veterinary care in Singapore, and I certainly support it. But as we professionalise the sector, let us keep faith with the ordinary pet owners. Let us make sure that the better standards do not come at the cost of accessibility, and affordability remains a central and real consideration in how this new framework is implemented.

Mr Louis Chua.

Mr Speaker, as a proud parent of a fur kid, I relate to the stress faced by pet owners when bringing their pet, often with much resistance, to the vet for medical treatment or check-up. I am sure many pet owners can relate to how they can somehow figure out whether they are being taken to the dog run or being taken to the vet for medical appointment.

However, no matter how anxious or rebellious the patient may be, it is the patience, skill and professionalism of our veterinary core that often place both the patient and its owner at ease.

In Singapore, demand for veterinary services is booming, owing to the rise in pet ownership and how pets are now often regarded as a member of the family, and not just a pet per se.

The Bill introduces a new three-tiered registration framework for veterinarians based on one's qualifications, namely full, restricted and specialist. Establishing the Veterinary Council as industry's professional body is therefore instrumental towards upholding the high standards expected of the profession, and a move I strongly support. Nonetheless, this Bill arrives against a backdrop of stretched veterinary manpower, mounting public concerns about care costs and an overall pet care ecosystem that still has significant gaps. Allow me to touch on these topics in turn in my speech.

In addition to regulating the veterinary industry, I hope that the Council would strengthen the pipeline of registered veterinarians to ease Singapore's shortage of veterinary professionals. According to the Singapore Veterinary Association, there are approximately 898 pets per vet as of 2022.

Currently, there is no university course in veterinary science available locally. While Ngee Ann and Temasek Polytechnics offer vet-related diplomas, they do not provide students with the pre-requisite qualifications to become a full-fledged licensed veterinarian. To apply for a licence to treat birds and animals under the present system, one must study overseas at a veterinary school recognised either by the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons or the Australasian Veterinary Board's Council.

If they hold a veterinary degree from a non-recognised university, they could also sit for and pass either the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Statutory Examination, the North American Veterinary Licensing Examination or the Australasian Veterinary Examination. This is a costly pathway, only open to those who have the means to do so or are awarded a scholarship, discriminating against many potential veterinarians with the love and passion for helping animals from pursuing such a novel profession.

In February 2026, a Parliamentary Question was posed to the Minister for Education on whether the Ministry will work with autonomous universities to introduce a locally-offered veterinary degree in view of growing demand and reliance on overseas trained vets. The reply was that the Ministry of Education (MOE) will continue to work with the autonomous universities and sector agencies, such as MND and NParks to monitor and assess how best to meet Singapore's long-term veterinary manpower needs.

I find the answer to be quite inadequate. I understand the arguments that Singapore's small land area means limited farm animal populations, and that there may not be sufficient scale to justify the opening up of a new programme. But the question is not whether the current supply is sufficient, which increasingly appears to be insufficient, but whether the pipeline is resilient. A profession whose entire intake depends on Singaporeans willing to bear the cost and disruption of overseas education with no guarantee of returning, is a profession with a structurally fragile supply chain.

Moreover, we can always start with a partnership model. For starters, I am reminded of the double degree programme offered by the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) in biomedical sciences and Chinese medicine with Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, which began in 2005. Today, NTU is launching its own four-year Bachelor of Chinese Medicine degree, which enrolled its first class of 25 students in August 2024, with plans to go up to 40 eventually.

I believe this is a model which we can replicate for our own veterinary degree. Will the Government be keen to introduce a locally offered veterinary degree, in addition to strengthening the supplies of veterinarians, which is crucial in addressing the manpower gap? I hope that the Council can look into plugging the brain drain faced by the industry.

As of September 2025, Singapore had approximately 674 licensed veterinarians, rising to around 700 by end-2025. This is up nearly six-fold, from just 122 in 2006. Demand for vet services have been rising alongside the rising incidents of pet ownership, yet every single vet in Singapore has been trained entirely abroad. Amongst the Singaporean veterinary students that study overseas, which comprise an overwhelming majority, only 50% or less choose to return home to practice, as many prefer to work in Australia or the UK, where opportunities abound, with perhaps better work life balance.

A study conducted by James Cook University and the Singapore Veterinary Association highlights that veterinary professionals are four to nine times more likely to experience depression, anxiety and stress compared to their human healthcare counterparts. Improving our local talent pipeline would therefore help plug the brain drain within the industry by spreading out the workload more sustainably, thus reducing the likelihood of burn-out.

Another issue faced by the industry is the lack of career progression, especially amongst veterinary paraprofessionals, such as nurses and technicians. When combined with burn-out and wages in commensurate with their less-than-ideal working conditions, it has resulted in a high attrition rate and manpower shortage. According to the Singapore Veterinary Association, only 20% of veterinary nursing graduates remain in the industry after five years, as of 2022, with many of them viewing this profession as unviable.

With plans to regulate veterinary nurses and technicians in works, I hope that the Council can develop structured opportunities for career progression and specialisation, thus boosting their wages and job prospects.

Furthermore, while clause 4(3) of the Bill specifies that the Council should minimally comprise of four fully-registered veterinarians and two laypeople, there is no explicit requirement for our veterinary paraprofessionals to be represented. Given their invaluable contributions to the industry, paraprofessionals should also have a seat at the table, thus providing an avenue for the concerns to be heard.

Mr Speaker, reforms to the vet sector should also protect consumers' interests. Big conglomerates and private equity firms have recently been heavily investing and acquiring pet care chains and veterinary practices. In fact, although dogs are allergic to chocolate, the Mars Corporation is ironically one of the biggest players in the veterinary scene. While such clinics benefit from a flush of capital, veterinarians might have to keep a closer eye on their bottom lines and the demands of upper management, instead of their patients.

Some years ago, our family adopted a dog from the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA). We named him Yellow. It was uncommon to find what appeared to be a purebred dog put up for adoption, but Yellow had physical deformities that required consistent and ongoing medical attention. Towards the end of his life, the cost of managing his condition was not far from what one might expect to pay for a human specialist. He was family and we wanted to do everything we could to ease his suffering.

But I am acutely aware that not every family is in the same position. For some, the cost of treatment is simply prohibitive and the cruellest irony of all is that euthanasia, the most unbearable option, may also be the cheapest one.

During the consultation process of the Bill, some respondents have also raised the issue of high veterinary fees and a lack of transparency. Although regulating clinic fees is beyond the remit of the Council, I believe that there is space for the Council to act in the interest of consumer protection and to prevent runaway healthcare cost in the veterinary scene.

It will be instructive of us to study the approach taken by other jurisdictions. For instance, the UK recently started mandating veterinary clinics to publicly disclose their practice ownership structure and introduce price lists for common procedures to boost transparency for consumers.

I do hope the Ministry and the Council can consider regularly publishing hospital bills and fee benchmarks, similar to how the Ministry of Health has done so, or even fee guidelines for starters.

Finally, I return to the concern I have raised previously about pet groomers. Beyond veterinary professionals, there are others within the wider animal care ecosystem that play a key role in ensuring the health and well-being of animals, such as pet groomers and trainers. This Bill creates full professional registration, practising certificates, continuing education requirements and a multi-tiered disciplinary framework for veterinarians, like pet groomers who handle animals daily and the number of whom have been linked to dozens of investigated welfare incidents, and who, in some cases, have been responsible for animal deaths, remain largely unregulated.

A Parliamentary reply this year revealed that NParks investigated 54 cases of harm to animals involving pet groomers over the past three years. Following questions raised in this House, MND indicated in January 2026 that the ABA review would consider whether to include the requirements for closed circuit television recordings.

There have also been cases of mishandling involving dog trainers. For instance, two employees of a dog-training firm were suspended in 2024 for physically harming two dogs under their care in preparation for a photo opportunity.

Currently, pet groomers and trainers are simply required to adhere to the Code of Animal Welfare, a set of minimum standards and best practices regarding certain aspects of animal care, such as housing, feeding and transport.

Back in September 2024, I asked a Parliamentary Question about whether there are plans to implement licensing requirements for pet groomers in the manner similar to pet breeders and boarders. I understand the Government is currently reviewing the Code of Animal Welfare with a focus on groomers as well as introducing a new chapter for dog trainers. However, the aforementioned instances of negligence by pet groomers and trainers highlight the need for a tighter enforcement regime for this group of professionals in addition to revising the penalties for animal cruelty and failure to fulfil duty of care to ensure that practitioners actually adhere to professional standards.

Mr Speaker, to care for animals is a labour of love. I support the passage of this Bill but there is more we can do to develop a fully functional animal health and welfare ecosystem.

I hope we can do more by strengthening the pipeline of veterinary professionals, plugging the brain drain faced by the industry, recognising the contributions of our veterinary professionals, enhancing consumer protection measures within the industry, and tightening the enforcement regime for pet groomers and trainers. This will nurture a driving animal care ecosystem that is centred around the health and welfare of its patients, whether it is domesticated pets, community animals or the wildlife in our garden city.

Ms Lee Hui Ying.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Veterinary Practice Bill. This is a milestone for our veterinary community, a profession that has grown from just over 100 practitioners two decades ago to about 700 today. The industry is still ripe for greater growth. Pet ownership continues to rise and Singaporeans are more sensitive to the care of their furry companions. Many neighbouring countries already have robust regulations for the veterinary industry, and it is opportune for Singapore to join the conversation.

As we move towards a more sophisticated regulatory landscape, we must ensure this Bill has the "claws and teeth" to protect not only the animals and their guardians, but also the dedicated professionals who serve and save them.

I wish to raise three areas of clarifications for consideration.

First, the introduction of a specialist register is a welcome move, strengthening the trust and quality of advanced veterinary services. We would not expect a general practitioner (GP) to perform complex orthopaedic, eye or soft tissue surgery on a human without a residency period and proper specialisation. But these are common surgeries that general licensed vets do in Singapore. This blurred distinction between specialised and non-specialised treatment in the current "GP-heavy" veterinary landscape creates a need for deeper regulation.

However, we must ask if the proposed three-tiered system is sufficiently robust. Specifically, clause 16 defines a specialist tier broadly and gives the Council greater statutory discretion to determine someone's place in this tier. There were concerns raised that the broadness of this tier cannot effectively motivate veterinary pursuits at the highest level.

In contrast, the Australian and New Zealand College of Veterinary Scientists stipulates a highly stratified professional qualification framework that informs their registration, including four tiers distinguishing general practitioners, members, fellows and finally, registered specialists.

The highest tier of registered specialist requires both a post-doctoral degree and years of clinical experience. This is similar to the residency system in human healthcare medicine. Moreover, there is a wide variety of postdoctoral degrees offered to prospective students, allowing them to upskill at the correct level of expertise and knowledge.

Similarly, the UK distinguishes between general practitioners, advanced practitioners and board-certified specialists. Advanced practitioners have postdoctoral degrees and practical experience but still might not meet the threshold to be considered board-certified specialists who receive residency training similar to human medicine, contribute to published research and are active in the specialty.

Contrast this with our three-tier system, which groups all levels of postgraduate expertise under a single "specialist" banner. This may risk the specialist tier being too blunt and not useful to consumers as a mark of trust and quality.

Many vets in Singapore studied in Australia and the UK. They are already familiar with more detailed tiered systems. So, it is not surprising that we have received feedback that the proposed tiers could be more robust, especially in the specialist class.

First, will the Ministry substantiate the specific requirements for the specialist tier in the subsidiary legislation? Second, if we are to stick with these three tiers, how does this safeguard the public interest as effectively as more granular international models? Third, to complement the Bill and encourage more stringent and continuous education requirements, will the Ministry consider providing support and grants to vet professionals for continuing education?

Second, another clarification desired on the ground is how will we protect our vets against death by process in possibly dealing with a "double penalty" of having to simultaneously defend a claim in the civil courts and a Vet Council inquiry, for the same set of facts.

I understand that both processes serve a different purpose. The civil courts serve to compensate for damages, and the Vet Council serves to discipline malpractice. However, vets who are likely to operate in smaller clinics would not have the resources to address two parallel processes. A single case could be a death sentence for the business, even if they are eventually cleared.

For example, under clause 56 of the Bill, an Interim Order can suspend a vet for up to 18 months while investigations proceed. This is a staggering timeframe to disrupt a person's livelihood.

Accountability is important, but it must be balanced with trust in our professionals. Otherwise, we risk increasing consumer costs from defensive medicine or deterring passionate people from taking up this specialised career.

To avoid disproportionate "punishment by process", can the Minister of State elaborate first, how does the Government balance the potential proceedings vets may face? Will there be guidelines to limit the amount of investigation time? If there are concurrent proceedings, can civil cases be put on hold until findings from the Vet Council have been released?

Lastly, we must talk about the "abuse gap." In the UK and Australia, the British and Australian Veterinary Associations have reported a surge in "cyberbullying" and physical intimidation by pet owners. In Singapore, vets often face "de minimis" claims – small, repetitive legal threats – that constitute a form of harassment.

The Government has done a great job since COVID-19 to prevent and protect our healthcare workers from harassment and abuse. We can do the same for our vets.

In the UK, this protection is extended to vets under the Respect Your Vet Team initiative. Furthermore, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, which is the UK's equivalent of a Veterinary Council, provides additional support to vets that makes them more than just a regulatory and disciplinary body.

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons provides a hotline for vets to discuss grey area issues, support vets through difficult disputes and, in recent years, have launched numerous initiatives to champion the mental well-being for vets. One such initiative is the ProfCon Investigation Support that provides Confidential Peer Support for those under investigation and their flagship Mind Matters Initiative that provides workshops to promote mental well-being and mental health in the industry.

This is a small industry with high attrition rates. Vets tend to have lower comparative pay despite years of specialised study, while managing compassion fatigue and abuse. This is slated to worsen if individuals spend more time and money to upskill as specialists, but continue to receive similar pay and working conditions. This shortage, in turn, transfers to the consumers, as a fall in the supply of vet services results in higher costs and fewer choices.

Will the Ministry consider extending the "Industry Abuse Protections" to veterinarians under the Vet Council, similar to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons in the UK, to provide them with better occupational support? Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, this Bill represents an important milestone for our veterinary industry. As more Singaporeans keep pets and pay greater attention to pet care, the veterinary industry is expected to continue flourishing.

Establishing a new registration system for veterinary specialists will help enhance public trust and quality in advanced veterinary services.

We would not expect a GP to perform complex specialist surgery on humans. Similarly, in the veterinary system, the blurred boundaries between specialist and non-specialist treatment make more comprehensive regulatory mechanisms necessary.

The Australian and New Zealand College of Veterinary Scientists has established a four-tiered professional qualification framework. Many of our vets have trained in Australia and the UK and are familiar with such tiered systems. Therefore, we have received feedback suggesting that the proposed tiered system, particularly in the specialist category, still has room for improvement.

For this reason, I would like to ask the Minister:

First, will the Minister further clarify the specific requirements for the specialist veterinary category in subsidiary legislation? Second, if we maintain the current three-tiered system, how can we ensure it will be as effective in safeguarding public interest? Third, to complement the Bill and encourage more stringent and continuous professional development, will the Government consider providing training support and grants for vets?

The veterinary industry has a small community but high attrition rates. Practitioners typically require years of specialised study yet face relatively low remuneration, whilst also dealing with emotional fatigue and harassment. If practitioners need to invest more time and money to advance as specialist veterinarians, but remuneration and working conditions remain unchanged, this situation may further deteriorate. The cost of manpower shortage will ultimately be passed on to consumers, as fewer veterinarians mean not only higher costs but also reduced choices.

Therefore, I would also like to ask the Minister whether consideration will be given to providing veterinarians with "Industry Abuse Protections" similar to those established by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons in the UK, to strengthen occupational safeguards for veterinary practitioners?

In Nee Soon South, I know some residents who work as veterinarians. They not only care for pets but also help pet owners with compassion. They tell me that when they encounter situations where owners cannot afford medical bills and are forced to surrender their pets, they continue treating these animals and find new homes for them.

The Veterinary Council has the potential to elevate this industry to the next level, but without clear definition of the specialist system or support for practitioners, it would be futile. Therefore, I look forward to seeing a Council that can raise industry standards without dampening practitioners' enthusiasm.

(In English): Mr Speaker, vets do more than care for our animal companions. They are the first line of defence for zoonotic diseases and public health. In Nee Soon South, I have residents who are also vets and they go the extra mile. They share with me they help pet owners who cannot afford veterinary healthcare bills and end up surrendering their pets – the vets continue to treat the animals and even rehome them to another family.

The Vet Council has the potential to help grow this booming industry. But a lack of specialist clarity or support for our vets can threaten the initiative's potential. We want a Council that elevates standards without crushing the spirits of those who practice. These clarifications aside, I stand in support of the Bill.

Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.20 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 2.59 pm until 3.20 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.20 pm.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]

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

Mr Muhaimin Malik.

Sir, as a parent to two cats, I understand first-hand the importance of having qualified, trustworthy veterinary professionals caring for our animals.

The establishment of the Veterinary Council, the creation of proper registration framework and the introduction of disciplinary proceedings are long overdue.

There are currently over 690 licensed veterinarians which has increased almost five-and-a-half-folds since 2006, serving an ever-growing population of pet owners who rightly expect professional, accountable care for their animals.

This Bill provides the legal architecture to meet those expectations.

While I support this Bill, my concern lies with what happens when it is enacted. Specifically, I wish to address three areas: public awareness of the new framework, the resourcing of enforcement and the position of experienced but unlicensed animal caregivers.

Sir, clause 24 of the Bill requires the Registrar to publish on the Council's website the names, practice details, qualifications and registration dates of all duly qualified veterinarians. This is a commendable transparency provision.

For the first time, pet owners will have a single authoritative register to verify that the person treating their animal is properly qualified. But a register is only useful if people know it exists and know how to use it. The Bill creates new legal categories that will be unfamiliar to most Singaporeans.

A duly qualified veterinarian is defined in clause 3 as a registered veterinarian with a valid practising certificate, excluding those whose registration or certificate is suspended.

There are three tiers of registration: full, restricted and specialist. Each carries different conditions and scope of practice.

Pet owners will need to understand what these distinctions mean in practical terms, for example, that a veterinarian with restricted registration may only practise at specific establishments or under supervision.

The Bill also creates new offences. Under clause 29, it is illegal for an unqualified individual to practise veterinary medicine. Under clause 30 to 33, it is an offence to falsely represent oneself or another as a qualified veterinarian. But these protections are only effective if pet owners know that unqualified practice is now a criminal offence and know how to report suspected violations.

I would ask the Minister of State two questions.

First, beyond the standard communications, will the Government work with veterinary clinics, pet businesses and community organisations to bring awareness directly to the point of service? For instance, through mandatory display of registration status at clinics, or through pet licensing touchpoints, where owners already interact with AVS.

Second, will the Government ensure that complaint channels are not only available, but prominently publicised so that the offence provisions under clauses 29 to 33 have real deterrent effect? The consumer protection promise of this Bill depends not just on public education, but on the right kind of public education, one that reaches pet owners at the point of service and empowers them to use the tools this Bill provides.

Sir, the Bill creates a robust enforcement toolkit. Clause 29(6) makes unqualified practice an offence punishable by a fine of up to $50,000 and imprisonment of up to 12 months. Clauses 30 to 33, criminalise false representation. Clause 79 empowers the appointment of investigators, and clause 73 sets out their powers to conduct investigations. Clause 83 allows the composition of offences, that is, settling matters out of court with a fine. Clause 85 confers jurisdiction on magistrates' courts and district courts.

These are strong provisions, but provisions on paper do not enforce themselves. The Bill does not specify who will carry out enforcement on the ground. AVS under NParks will presumably continue in its existing regulatory role over veterinary clinics and animal related businesses. But the new framework adds substantial responsibilities. Investigating complaints of unqualified practice, supporting the Veterinary Council's disciplinary machinery, monitoring compliance with registration conditions and continue education requirements, and building institutional expertise in a regulatory function that has not previously existed at this scale.

I will ask the Minister of State four questions.

First, what additional enforcement resources does the Government intend to allocate to support the implementation of this Bill?

Second, will there be a dedicated enforcement unit, or will these functions be absorbed into AVS' existing operations?

Third, how many investigators does the Government anticipate appointing in the initial years?

And fourth, will enforcement capacity be progressively scaled up as the framework matures and eventually extend to cover veterinary nurses?

Sir, lastly, I wish to raise a matter that is sensitive, but important: the position of experienced individuals in our community who care for animals, but do not hold veterinary qualifications.

Singapore has a dedicated community of animal caregivers. They include wildlife rehabilitators who nurse injured birds and monitor otters. They include community animal feeders who look after stray and community cats, sometimes treating minor wounds or administrating basic medication. They include shelter workers and volunteers at animal welfare organisations, who provide day-to-day care and first response for animals in distress. Many of these individuals have developed significant practical knowledge over years, even decades of hands-on experience. They perform an invaluable service for animal welfare in Singapore – often without compensation and at their own expense.

The Bill's definition of the practice of veterinary medicine in clause 2 is broad. It covers diagnosis of disease or injury, medical treatment, the administration of anaesthetics, drug prescription and the issuance of professional certificates.

Under clause 29(1), it is an offence for anyone who is not a duly qualified veterinarian to practise veterinary services. Some of the activities currently performed by community animal caregivers could, on a broad reading, fall within this definition.

I note that the Bill does provide an important exception. Clause 29(5) allows non-veterinarians to perform certain acts within the practice of veterinary medicine, provided these acts are not excluded acts and are performed under the supervision of a duly qualified veterinarian and in accordance with prescribed conditions.

The excluded acts defined in clause 29(7), which include diagnosis, surgery, drug prescription and the issuance of professional certificates are strictly reserved for veterinarians. This is appropriate and I do not have any qualms with it. However, the practical boundaries of this exception remain unclear.

What constitutes supervision in the context of community animal care, where there is typically no veterinarian on site?

What are the prescribed conditions that will govern this exception?

Can a community caregiver clean and dress wound on a community cat without breaching the law?

Can a wildlife rehabilitator administer oral rehydration to an injured bird?

These are not hypothetical questions. They describe activities that take place every day in Singapore. The answers will depend on the regulations that are eventually prescribed under this Bill.

I ask the Minister of State four questions.

First, will the Government engage the animal welfare organisations and community caregivers in developing the subsidiary regulations under this Bill?

Second, will there be a transition period during which enforcement action is not taken against bona fide community caregivers performing basic first aid?

Third, does the Government intend to exercise the exemption power under clause 86 to provide the specific carve-outs for community animal welfare activities?

And fourth, will the Government consider developing clear, practical guidelines, distinct from the regulations themselves that explain in plain language what community caregivers can and cannot do under the new framework?

The community animal care sector in Singapore operates largely on goodwill, compassion and volunteer effort. We should regulate to protect animals, not inadvertently criminalise the very people who have been protecting them.

Sir, as a cat parent, I want to know that the professionals caring for my animals are qualified, accountable and held to high standards. This Bill promises to deliver on that assurance. But assurance on paper must translate to confidence in practice. Pet owners must be empowered to use the register and recognise unqualified practice. Enforcement must be resourced to match the ambition of this framework and the community caregivers who have been looking after Singapore's animals long before this Bill, the volunteers who feed the community cats, nurse injured wildlife and staff our shelters must not find themselves on the wrong side of a law meant to protect the very animals they serve.

Notwithstanding my queries and clarifications, I support the Bill.

Mr David Hoe.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am speaking in support of the Veterinary Practice Bill.

NParks noted during public consultations that Singapore has over 690 licensed veterinarians in October 2025. This is five and a half times more than the number in 2006. This shows that the sector has grown in size, scope and complexity since then.

As pet ownership rises, the range of treatments also expands. Our laws must keep pace and this is exactly what this Bill is trying to do, by ensuring that there is qualified care given. This Bill matters because public concerns about animal welfare and accountability have sharpened over the years, including after high-profile incidents in the wider animal care ecosystem.

But beyond individual incidents, I observe a deeper shift that is taking place in this country. As Singapore progresses beyond our first 60 years, our sense of compassion is also broadening. More people do not just only care about themselves and also just human outcomes, but they also care about the welfare of animals around them. And I see this in every single day settings.

In Clementi for instance, some residents are deeply committed to caring for community cats' well-being. In October 2025, I organised a convening between Clementi residents, NParks, AVS and Town Councils where views were actively and passionately aired about how animal welfare can be better safeguarded.

Their concerns are not abstract. They speak from daily caregiving experience, they want to see these animals live well, cared for and a system that responds more compassionately and effectively. What stood out to me was that the residents were not asking for more rules. They were asking for clearer processes, greater empathy and a stronger confidence that the relevant systems would work well when for the animal welfare's concern.

It is against this backdrop, I support the Bill because it entails guardrails for animal welfare by ensuring baseline through having needing prescribed qualifications for veterinarians. However, I have three broad concerns, and I hope the Government can address.

First, it is about the accessibility and talent pipeline for the veterinarian profession. When I speak to young people about their aspirations, their responses are highly diverse. Some want to be lawyers, some want to be doctors, some want to be pilots. But there are also some that tell me that I want to be a vet when I grow older, and this is also reflected in my recent Clementi Community Run, where a youth shared with me when she was much younger, she aspired to be an animal doctor then.

But this particular aspiration usually comes from something simple. When I ask why, this aspiration is shaped by their lived experience. A visit to the zoo, caring for a pet at home or even just wandering around our neighbourhood shops, looking at the pet shops. You see, it is my belief that in Singapore we must be able to tell every single child that their aspirations can be realised and is not a function of their family income.

While I appreciate this Bill providing greater clarity on the qualification and registration framework for those who want to practise as veterinarians in Singapore, I would like to invite you now to join me on a journey to realise what does it take to realise this aspiration. To be fair, the landscape has improved, because before 2018, the only way that you can pursue the relevant qualification to become a veterinarian, was to do this overseas.

Today, the National University of Singapore's (NUS') Life Science's concurrent programme with the University of Melbourne, Doctor of Veterinarian Medicine, or known as DVM, is a pathway to be able to get such qualification. However, it is relatively costly in terms of time, commitment and also finances.

First, you need to first spend five regular semesters in NUS, then following a year in Melbourne to read the first year of DVM, continued with three more years as a full-time international student in Melbourne to complete this DVM. The University of Melbourne's international tuition fee for DVM is nearly A$86,000 per year as of 2026. This means a student would typically have to pay $300,000 or more in tuition fees to be able to complete this concurrent degree programme. There are also other hidden costs as well, such as accommodation, transportation and daily necessities.

So, while this is a good thing that we have at least a local-linked pathway, the financial barriers are real. I say this not as a criticism of this Bill, because after all, this is not a higher education Bill. But once Parliament puts a stronger statutory framework for this particular profession, then I think it is reasonable that we ask whether we can enhance our talent development strategy in this particular sector.

I therefore ask MND, NParks and also MOE, and as well as our institutes of higher learning (IHLs), whether we can study how to be more deliberate to reduce the financial barriers before enrolling into such programmes. This could take the form of these few things: a bonded scholarship, bursary, enhanced study grants, structured sponsorship for Singaporeans prepared to serve in the sector after graduation.

If deeper institution partnership is explored over time, perhaps the Government and our IHLs can also study what are the ways to moderate cost burden for students on such concurrent programme pathways, so the overseas component does not become a decisive barrier. For example, can they still pay local school fees while studying abroad, because this is quite similar to students when they go overseas for exchange.

I note positively there are existing schemes. Let me share some. NParks' Study Grants Programme supports Singapore Citizens pursuing a full-time veterinary programme in an accredited overseas university, and also NParks-Peter Lim Scholarship explicitly supports less privileged youths pursuing careers in the veterinary and animal science sector.

This, in my view, are good moves. But my question is, are they enough, relative to the cost and the length of the pathways and whether there could be more upstream support needed so that talent is not simply lost because this route is too expensive. NParks itself has said that pet ownership is on the rise and Singapore's veterinary sector is expanding to meet this growing demand for high quality animal care. At the same time, Singaporeans' households are keeping pets. Expectation of care have also risen. In fact, I also do know of a number of Clementi residents that recently just did a career switch to go into the animal care industry.

So, when we talk about building pipeline to this profession, we are not planning for a shrinking sector, because the demand looks to me like it is likely going to continue rising. Against this backdrop, I also wonder whether we should consider a full local DVM programme hosted by one of our autonomous universities, as well as maybe degree partnership, where we have more locally delivered components for our current local foreign veterinary programme offerings, stronger clinical placement arrangement.

More broadly, I want to be able to look at every single child in Singapore and say that your aspiration matters. We have the pathways and structures to enable you to realise your aspiration and your aspiration is not a function of your family's income.

I recognise that the points that I have raised cut across the purview of several Ministries, MOE, the Ministry of Manpower, and it does not strictly fall under the purview of MND. But in the spirit of a whole-of-Government collaboration and since this Bill established a legal framework that defines who can practise as a vet, then the broader question is, how do we develop pipeline into this profession should also be considered.

I kid you not – I hesitated for a while and I asked myself whether should I even raise this, because what I have just raised goes beyond the strict four corners of the Bill. But I chose to do so because I believe Singapore must be a place where passion is made possible and not quietly limited by cost constraints.

Second, I hope the Ministry can also focus on developing wider talent pipeline for veterinary and animal care ecosystem broadly. This is because a strong animal care sector does not only run on veterinarians. It also requires veterinary technicians, nurses, animal care workers and other support roles. In this regard, Temasek Polytechnic already offers a diploma in veterinary technology and Singapore Food Agency's sector career page lists that this particular diploma, it is a full-time pathway into a broader agrifood and animal care space.

However, at the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) level, I realise that the publicly visible offering seems to be shorter courses or part-time animal care and grooming programmes, such as basic aquatic animal care, with a course duration of seven hours, and a certificate of competency in dog care and grooming with a duration of 14 hours.

As it stands today, I am really not sure whether there are fuller ITE pathways relevant to veterinary or animal care work. It would be helpful for the Ministry to be able to clarify this.

If the response is no or not yet, then I hope the Government will consider more structured pathways to be developed over time, especially since NParks have already said in the longer term, the Veterinary Council will also regulate veterinary nurses, which will play an important role in supporting animal care. This matters because a good system allows people with different strengths, academic profiles and financial starting points to contribute meaningfully. Not everyone will become a vet, but many can still play a part in this high-quality animal care ecosystem if we build proper pathways there.

My third point concerns public assurance, governance and how this framework will work in practice. I spoke at length about pathways; now let me move to clause 18, which introduces a category known as restricted registration for individuals who may not hold qualification from prescribed universities, but they demonstrate necessary training, knowledge, skills and experience. For pet owners and animal lovers, this clarity of this area is important because the Council is expected to also provide more details at a later point, clear public communication on what this restricted registration allows or does not allow to do matters, because it gives pet owners that level of security to know who is giving their pet care and what can they do.

I also support the composition of the Veterinary Council, which include experienced veterinarians and laypersons. However, I would like to have a little bit more elaboration on what exactly are the expertise are we looking at for the layperson? What are they expected to bring to the table? What are the broad considerations that will guide their selection?

I would also appreciate some clarification on the requirement to have at least a fully registered vet on the Council, because it says that it must have at least 10 years of experience as a vet. Does this mean continuous practice or cumulative practice over time? And what reference point does experience starts counting from? Why do I ask? Because some vets or some animal doctors might take a career break at some point and return. The moment that they return and when they have first started, do we look at these years as part of the 10 years of experience as a vet?

On disciplinary matters, I welcome the Bill because it provides a more developed framework for complaints assessment, disciplinary committees, interim orders, investigation, appeals and penalties. NParks has said that this framework has developed with reference from professional regimes in healthcare and the built environment, as well as overseas veterinary statutory boards. This is reassuring, especially because the Bill itself says that for unauthorised practice and related misconduct also carry significant penalties of a $50,000 fine and/or up to 12 months of imprisonment. However, I would like to clarify how the MND arrived at this, and what benchmark were they using to determine this? At the end of the day, we want to be able to ensure that the cost of committing a crime is high enough that it will deter others from doing it.

More broadly, I would also like to understand how the appeals framework will operate in practice. For example, if a certain appeal is routed to the Minister, or where decisions are made across different stages that involves the same bodies, there may be questions about how independent and clearly separated the processes are perceived to be. In a professional regulatory system, it is not only just actual fairness that matters, but is also perceived neutrality. So, it would be helpful if the Ministry could clarify how the framework has been designed to ensure that confidence can be maintained on both fronts.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in closing, this Bill plays an important step in building a stronger and a more credible veterinary profession in Singapore. It gives pet owners greater assurance, gives the profession clearer legal footing and gives the public stronger grounds on what standards to expect.

But the job does not end with regulation alone. We should also make pathways into this profession more accessible, make standards clearer for the public and build a system done well in preventing potential harm to our pets and our animals.