Hansard, Wednesday, 6 May 2026

1 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many police reports were received in 2025 concerning the circulation of AI-generated fake obscene images of real persons; (b) what proportion of these cases involved perpetrators and victims who were fellow students in educational institutions; and (c) what can victims or complainants expect in follow-up actions by the police.

Sir, the Police do not track how many of the obscene materials cases it investigates involve AI-generated images of real persons.

Where there is a report relating to any obscene material, the Police will conduct investigations, including through interviewing the accused and other witnesses, and examining any digital forensic evidence that may be available. For cases involving young victims, the Police may notify the parents or guardians. The Police will also offer victim care services to victims who require psychological support.

If the AI-generated obscene images are circulating online, the Police may issue directions under the Online Criminal Harms Act to online service providers to disable Singapore users’ access to them.

Ms Lim.

Thank you, Sir. I have three supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. The first is that in some cases that I have come across, I was told by the victims that they reported to Police that their images had been artificially created and put up on porn websites, and the Police had advised them to take action under the Protection from Harassment Act, as it is a non-arrestable offence. I would like the Senior Minister of State to clarify whether this is actually the default position of the Police in such reports.

Second, to be fair to the Police, in the cases that I know of, after we appealed for the victim, the Police actually assisted to have the images removed. So, that is very helpful and of most concern to the victims. I would like to ask whether that is something that the Police does ordinarily from most of these reports.

The third question is, I believe that under the Penal Code, there are actually some arrestable offences that would actually cover some of the conduct – for example, being in possession of intimate images and so on, under section 377BD and 377BE. So, I would like to ask when the Police would classify the case under these arrestable offences and investigate with the view to prosecution.

Sir, I believe that the first and the third supplementary questions from the Member are related. I would say that if the facts of the case are such that it warrants taking action under the Penal Code for offences relating to the circulation of intimate images, the Police will do so. So, it is not that there is a default position to go a certain route – everything depends on the facts of the case as disclosed.

In terms of what happens to the images that are, say, circulating online, as I have also shared in the main reply, where there are obscene images circulating online, and which, in the course of investigation, or due to the report, it is known, the Police may issue directions to the online service providers to block access of Singapore users to them.

2 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry has implemented safeguards, including longitudinal studies, to monitor the impact of early AI use at the primary level on students’ development of foundational skills and higher-order thinking and to prevent over-reliance on AI tools; and (b) if so, what these entail.

3 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for Education (a) what prerequisite skills must primary school students demonstrate before AI is first introduced for usage; (b) what is the rationale for the Primary 4 entry point; (c) what is the implementation roadmap for AI in primary curricula, including age cohorts and approved tools; and (d) what guidelines, training and workload support will teachers receive to distinguish productive AI use from shortcut substitution.

4 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for Education in respect of the use of artificial intelligence in education (a) whether the Ministry has established safeguards to ensure (i) transparency to parents on data collected through AI-enabled learning tools and (ii) procedural fairness when students are penalised for inappropriate AI use; and (b) if so, what do these safeguards entail.

5 Mr David Hoe asked the Minister for Education (a) what does the introduction of AI from Primary 4 under "low exposure" and close teacher supervision entail, including whether it refers only to curated MOE- and GovTech-developed tools in the Student Learning Space; (b) why Primary 4 is chosen as the starting point; and (c) how the Ministry will assess readiness for any broader rollout of AI tools in schools.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to address oral Question Nos 2 to 5 on today’s Order Paper together?

Please proceed.

Thank you, Sir. My response will also address related oral and written Parliamentary Questions scheduled for the Sitting on and after 7 May.

Sir, artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly accessible, not just on the Internet but also embedded in hardware and even toys. General purpose AI is also easily available online. It is therefore important for students, even younger ones, to develop overall awareness of AI in daily life, have guided discussions on its benefits and risks, and be ready to use AI. AI is going to cause disruption and create opportunity, and we want to prepare our children well and equip them with the knowledge and skills to meet this new world.

The Ministry of Education's (MOE’s) approach is simple, but deliberate – for every student to learn about AI, learn to use AI, learn with AI and most importantly, learn beyond AI. These are what we call the "Four Learns".

Theoretical knowledge alone is not sufficient. Our students also need well-designed and supervised hands-on experiences, through the use of educational AI tools guided by teachers. This spiral approach, as students progress through different levels in school, prepares them to harness AI to benefit their learning, critically evaluate AI output and guard against risks such as cognitive offloading.

We want to develop AI literacy in our students in a calibrated and purposeful way. Our approach is informed by research on how children learn and develop, and what is helpful at each stage of growth. Technology, including AI, is used only when it supports educational objectives and students’ development. This has guided us when introducing AI in our schools.

From Primary 1 to 3, physical, tactile, hands-on learning is prioritised as students build foundational knowledge and develop cognitive and social skills. But students learn about the basics of AI – so, AI literacy – so that they are aware of its presence in their daily lives, but schools will not assign any work that requires them to use AI directly.

From Primary 4, our students would have developed foundational literacy, numeracy and basic foundational knowledge of AI in their daily lives. Research also shows that at around this age, they would have developed some executive functioning skills – like planning, task initiation and ability to evaluate their own thinking – to begin to use simple digital tools to support their learning. We will therefore let them use educational AI tools under teacher supervision.

Students in Primary 4 to 6 will only use AI tools in school that are specifically designed for education. And they will only do so under teacher supervision. This includes the AI-enabled tools that we have introduced into the Singapore Student Learning Space (SLS) which are specially designed to help our children and students learn. These tools have in-built safety guardrails.

For example, Primary 4 students in an English Language class can use the AI Learning Assistant (LEA) in SLS for composition writing in class. Using the prompts provided by their teacher, our students can get ideas on how to "show not tell", a technique where students enhance their writing through details on actions and emotions to help readers better experience the narrative, and refine their drafts based on personalised feedback from the LEA.

In this case, the LEA supports students to iteratively improve their writing with more engaging content and vivid language, to strengthen their writing skills.

The LEA gives every student an individual AI writing coach that responds to our students in real-time, based on their specific drafts. As a guardrail, the LEA will redirect students back on track if they veer off-topic and ask irrelevant questions, or if they want to be spoon-fed with direct answers. Last year, my colleagues and I tried it out. We were in a class, there was a particular topic, and we deliberately tried to go off course and say "What is good in the canteen?" or "How can I use this topic for a party trick?" And they will tell us to say "No, this is not relevant. Please let's get back on topic. Let's learn about" this and that.

At the same time, our teachers can reinforce our students’ AI literacy during lesson consolidation by guiding them to form good learning habits when using AI. As students learn to use AI and learn with AI, they will also learn more about what AI is. They are taught how it works, how to be discerning about AI output and the importance of being responsible for the content that they create.

During Cyber Wellness lessons, students are taught to be discerning about AI output as it may contain errors or false information and the importance of being responsible for the content they create.

Prior to using AI tools in SLS, students go through the “Basic Module on AI and AI-enabled Features in SLS”, to teach them about the tools in SLS and how to use them for learning.

From Primary 4, students undergo the mandatory 10 hours "Code for Fun" programme – it is coding for fun, but it is mandatory. It is a programme which includes coding, computational thinking and introduction to AI, so that students appreciate AI’s benefits, risks and limitations, and understand how AI uses data to learn.

Under Code for Fun, primary schools can also opt for two additional "AI for Fun" modules, each five hours, that delve further into generative AI and computer vision respectively.

Schools will also teach students when they should not use AI, so that they do not take short cuts to get answers without actual learning.

We want to provide our students with a school environment where they can develop good learning habits and understand the importance of upholding academic integrity. For example, some secondary schools may design tasks which allow students to use AI. In these situations, students must state where they have used AI and cite the sources of information. This helps to prepare them for post-secondary education where they will be expected to use AI far more heavily, in anticipation of what their future workplace might look like.

However, if students pass off AI-generated content as their own, they will have to bear the consequences of academic dishonesty.

National exams continue to be proctored and use of AI is prohibited. If students use AI as a shortcut for their daily work instead of learning deeply, they will not be able to demonstrate the levels of mastery expected during the exams.

In cases where the use of AI is permitted in national exams, such as for coursework, Teacher Supervisors monitor students’ work such that AI use meets the objectives of the assessment.

Educational AI tools made available by MOE have in-built safety guardrails to protect learners’ interest, privacy and well-being. Besides the educational guardrails to ensure good learning,

Data from students’ use of MOE-built AI tools is anonymised and not used to train external AI models that power these tools.

When schools use commercial-off-the-shelf AI tools, they are required to check that the input data does not contain personal identifiable information and is in compliance with data management guidelines.

Our teachers play a central role in harnessing AI effectively for student learning, and we have been equipping them with the necessary knowledge and skills to do so. For instance, we provide opportunities for our teachers to learn about AI, including the ethical and pedagogical considerations of its use, and its associated risks and limitations. We also facilitate the sharing of good practices on AI use amongst our educators. These include workshops and networked learning communities led by our Master Teachers as well as online sharing platforms.

At MOE, we seek to keep up-to-date with international reports and how other systems are approaching the use of AI in education. We also fund projects that study how AI affects children’s development and learning. One example is the Singapore Longitudinal Early Development Study (SG-LEADS) by the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), which will start to collect data in 2027. This research seeks to understand Singapore children’s AI usage patterns and how their AI usage affects their learning and well-being outcomes.

But given how quickly AI is developing, we are also working with our schools to conduct short-term research to inform classroom practices in a timely manner.

We know that some parents have misgivings about exposing their children at an early age to AI. Many are already struggling with their children’s excessive screentime on smart phones and devices at home. Through the Parents Gateway and MOE’s social media platforms, we have been sharing with parents how schools use AI and how parents can support their children’s use of AI in their education journey. Some schools even meet parents at the start of the year or at different points in time, to engage them.

The recent post titled “We answer: How your primary school child is learning with AI” on MOE social media is one example. Schools also share with parents how AI tools may be used in teaching and learning at the school level and provide avenues for parents to share their views on the use of AI tools.

AI has been developing rapidly and is increasingly embedded into everyday systems around us. If we are not mindful, we may lose the consciousness in detecting the presence of, and influence that AI has in our decision making and ways of thinking, simply because it works so seamlessly. So, development of AI literacy is critical and must be timely.

Education systems across the world are responding to this differently. Some systems like China, UAE and the United Kingdom (UK) have introduced AI – AI literacy, AI use – from Primary 1. Others like India or states in Australia and the United States (US), start at similar ages to Singapore, or slightly later. MOE has chosen to take a calibrated approach informed by the learning sciences, emerging research and studies conducted by practitioners and academics and ongoing exchanges with various countries. Our approach is therefore a dynamic one. As AI develops and more research is done, we will continue to calibrate and adjust our approach to the use of AI in education.

Even as we prepare our students to be future ready, I want to assure parents and fellow Singaporeans that the use of AI in education seeks to be balanced and age-appropriate, and applied purposefully to support students' learning and development.

Dr Chen.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his replies. I have a few questions. Number one, how do we ensure that our students still learn to think independently, even with the use of AI? Number two, will the AI curriculum account for the needs of vulnerable students, such as those with special needs and mental health challenges? And number three, will the Ministry also consider studying the impact of AI on vulnerable children and those from at-risk families as well?

Indeed, the Member is right. We want to make sure that even as our children start to use AI tools for learning, or use AI tools for their schoolwork as they grow older, that it scaffolds and enhances cognitive development and metacognitive development, and not hobble it. So, independent learning, independent ability is an important part of AI in education.

And our approach is one that — I have brought this document for everybody to take a look. This is our approach to AI in education and we have, as a guiding principle, number one, students at the centre: "keeping student learning as the goal and maintaining student agency". And principle number two is pedagogy first, which means "good teaching and learning must come first, enabled by skillful use of AI". These are two broad concepts, the heuristics that guide us and beneath that there are guidelines, principles and quick guides that enable us to adjust and adapt the use of AI in the classroom, as well as on SLS.

With regard to students with special educational needs (SEN) and mental health, as I have said yesterday and previously, we have SEN officers in school. We have student school counsellors, we have teachers who are given basic foundational knowledge on how to support students with education needs. In the classroom as well as, under teacher supervision, the use of AI-enabled tools in SLS will continue to be under teachers' supervision, and for children with SEN, they will keep an eye out for them.

Likewise, for children coming from more vulnerable families – AI in education, AI in SLS, AI in MOE schools is not used for affective or social emotional issues or social emotional learning. We do not use our chatbots or AI tools to check on students' well-being, or to help them build up social emotional skills. That is the sole domain of our educators and our MOE staff. But we use it on the cognitive front to help our children. When it comes to children from more vulnerable families, if there are specific issues that may impact their use of AI in learning, then our schools will specifically support them and scaffold for them,

Mr Kenneth Tiong.

Thank you, Speaker. Three supplementary questions. First, many parents I have spoken to are worried about cognitive offloading – the phenomenon where children offload their thinking to AI. Metacognition, the ability to notice when you are wrong, is built through struggle and not through receiving correct answers. And the evidence is that students who encounter difficulty before resolving it, develop stronger self-correction capacity. So, how does MOE intend for our learners to encounter productive struggle to build these metacognitive skills?

Second, Sweden's Karolinska Institute advised the Swedish government, and I quote, "There is clear scientific evidence that digital tools impair rather than enhance student learning", end quote. That conclusion drew on multiple peer-reviewed studies covering reading comprehension, distraction, executive function development and equity outcomes. And the Swedish government acted on this, reversing its digitalisation strategy in 2023 and investing over €200 million to reintroduce physical textbooks and removing mandatory digital tools for young children. I am sure the Minister is aware of this, so what are his points of disagreement with the Swedish example?

And number three, some parents have also asked if they will have the option of opting out their children from specific aspects of AI tool usage in classrooms.

I think on the first point, we are ad idem. We want to make sure that in using AI tools, our children do not cognitively offload – and that is shorthand for saying that they rely on the AI as a crutch to deliver the answer, but not learn deeply, so they do not develop cognitively.

And that is why in my earlier reply, I mentioned that the MOE tools that are used in SLS are teacher-supervised and the tools are structured in a way that they do not allow children to ask for spoon-fed answers. For example, the LEA mathematics. You try the SLS Mathematics question, guided by LEA Mathematics, it will not spoon-feed you the answer. Whereas general purpose AI tools, will. But these are not used in the MOE space in SLS, and it will then remind you to say, "No, this approach is wrong". It will prompt you. Some say it is a Socratic style, but it prompts you so that it causes you to go back and revisit the principle you have learnt and it will not spoon-feed you. So, that is the key.

Of course, our concern for parents is that the children may use tools outside SLS at home, use general purpose tools to take shortcuts. And that is why the home-school partnership is so important. The partnership between parents and school, so that we both, parents and teachers, are educators of our children and can help guide our children in the use of AI for their homework.

In school, we will guide, we will have AI literacy, we will teach our students when to use AI and when not to use AI. In our teaching approaches through SLS, we have used the AI tools for an educative purpose, but we need to guard against children using general purpose AI tools outside this teaching environment, which may cause them to cognitively offload. So, that is a struggle that we all have to address as a whole of society approach; not just here in Singapore, but across the world.

The Member's second question is about the Swedish reversal, to reverse their digital stance and to take away all these devices that they have given to the children – I believe at the age of five. A couple of years ago, they gave it out at the age of five. And they are reversing that, going back to analog. Some people say it is going back to analog.

Our approach is blended. As I have said, we continue to have physical textbooks, we continue to have didactic teaching. We have a classroom phenomenon-based learning, experiential learning, learning journeys – very teacher-centric. And AI, as I said just now and I showed you that document, is a tool to enable learning.

And so for us, we are mindful that if we do not draw the distinction between general AI tools versus specifically designed learning tools, or educational AI, then it might cause us to take a wrong policy approach in Singapore and not use AI at all. I think that would be a mistake. Because of the changes that are happening in the world, we should make use of AI to help our students learn, because they are going to use it anyway. Whether you supervise them or not, they will use it. It is available on the Internet, in your search engines they are there. You cannot switch it off; in some instances, in your general search tools. And it is far better to start AI literacy young and start getting our kids to use AI for learning in a highly scaffolded teacher supervised and of course, parents supervised way, and then as they grow older, when they start using these tools independently, that they have the principles and foundation to be able to build on it. Because ultimately in higher learning and in the workplace, these tools will become ubiquitous. And so, we need to prepare our children well and not take an approach that lacks discrimination. So, that is key.

And third on opting out, it depends. If it is an SLS enabled tool and is used in classroom learning, it is part of teaching and learning. It is part of teachers' blended approach and I think that will enable our teachers to be able to help our children learn the cognitive aspects, the foundational knowledge more deeply. If there are specific tools that are externally brought in where there is a parental consent element that we will then bring to the parents, then we will not allow the children to use those AI tools.

But, so far, the use of AI in general teaching, blended approaches. It is like saying, I do not want my children to have a white board, I want a black board; I want print, but I do not want an overhead projector like in the past, or PowerPoint to be used. I think we must enable our teachers to be able to perform their role and this, of course, is subject to MOE guidance and good teaching or Singapore teaching practice.

Mr David Hoe.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Minister for his response. I have three clusters of supplementary questions.

The first is, a recent The Straits Times article reported that a Primary 5 student was asked by the teacher to use ChatGPT for his homework. I would like to clarify whether teachers can ask primary school students to use publicly available AI tools to assist them in their homework? And if so also, could MOE also share what is an appropriate age where students are then able to use publicly available AI tools to assist them in their learning?

My second question is, since platforms, such as Open AI and ChatGPT requires users below 18 years old to obtain parental consent, does MOE then also expect teachers to reach out to parents to get their consent to use such tools in classroom for their learning? If so, what support will be given to teachers, because sometimes chasing parents to submit a form is significantly harder than getting the students to submit homework?

Lastly, during a recent People's Action Party Women's Union Listening Pod event, a parent asked whether parents could have the opportunity to try MOE's AI learning tools themselves, because this will help them to better experience the guardrails and also understand how to support their child in their learning. Hence, I would like to ask whether would MOE be open to having such engagement, to let parents try how these MOE AI learning tools? If so, would MOE also be willing to do one in Clementi and I will be more than happy to run the parent engagement for parents living in Clementi.

I thank the Member. On his first point, he raised an example in The Straits Times article; and we will do better to make sure that in close partnership with our educators, we apply these AI usage principles and guidelines more effectively and consistently. Because some of these general purpose tools are not appropriate for children at particular age. There are terms of usage for the tool itself, not to mention our own requirements on the use of AI to scaffold learning, rather than impact it negatively. That is one.

Second, I think the Member mentioned that some AI tools have age restrictions and if a teacher wants to use the tool in classroom, but the child is below age, we need parental consent. If the tool has an age restriction, then we will not use it for children below that age. Simple as that.

Third, to let parents try out MOE's AI tools, like the Learning Feedback Assistant and so on. Let us take it back to see how we can do it in a meaningful way and scalable manner.

Ms Eileen Chong.

Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister. I actually have a supplementary question that is related the equity paradox in AI use. I appreciate the Minister's point about the difference between AI literacy and AI usage, and the importance of adult supervision as our children engage with AI tools from a young age. So, I would like to know if the Minister could elaborate on MOE's perspective on how students from more disadvantaged backgrounds, especially those with lesser access to parental guidance or adult supervision, may end up leaning more on AI and not less, and how such dependency might actually erode the very cognitive development that it is meant to supplement, and that these children who are most at risk are precisely the ones that we need to uplift instead of having the AI use deepen the education inequality?

That is an argument or that is a point that is evergreen. It is not just about AI. It is about the children in less privileged backgrounds not having the same amount of scaffolding and support at home and outside school on a whole range of issues. We have different approaches to handling that – the MOE Opportunity Fund, we have ComLink, we have Gift-A-Family, we have many other schemes that involve deep partnership with the community.

And so, I mentioned in school how we have supervision or teacher-supervised usage of AI tools, and that applies to all the students, particularly younger ones. As they leave school and go home and start using some of these tools – because SLS can only be used in the classroom when it comes to AI tools – then, the risks of them using other tools that are free-for-use on the Internet and how do we ensure that outside the classroom, there is supervision and support?

So, the AI literacy that we build in all through a student's learning journey, guides them and helps to build in them that consciousness about appropriate AI usage. We hope, of course, that that is the best defence – that the child imbibes it, understands it, regardless of their socioeconomic status, they learn about it and then outside the school environment, and all through life, they are mindful of its appropriate usage.

But then for the younger ones in the community and at home, partnership with parents is important, regardless of background. But we endeavour to work closely with the community. And so, we have homework support in different community groups, we have self-help groups that come in to provide support for children over and beyond what is available in school; and many other groups that come in to support our children. So, that is a partnership we must tap on and continue to build, particularly when it comes to supporting them on appropriate AI use.

Ms Cassandra Lee.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Last weekend, the People's Action Party's Women's Wing in the South West Community Development Council held a dialogue with more than 100 parents and residents on the use of AI in our children's education. And we were glad a few Members were able to join us. One sentiment that was surfaced echoes what the Minister has said – that before our children use AI, they need to understand what it is, its limitation as well as to have the maturity and judgement to handle it responsibly.

One of the most popular questions during that dialogue was what would be the best age for parents to talk about AI to their child. Given MOE's position that AI exposure in schools currently begins from Primary 4 under low exposure and close teacher supervision, my question to the Minister is whether MOE has been consulted or will consider providing recommendations to the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI), as it studies the AI nutrition label and online safeguards, particularly whether AI tools, especially standalone AI tools, should have age-based guidelines, safeguards or default protect protections that apply differently for younger children?

I think MDDI, the Ministry of Health (MOH) and MOE had given some recommendations and guidelines in 2025 on digital usage and use of technology at home and with children. Some of that will be a useful reference for all of us as parents and as a community.

But indeed, having that conversation early with your child about what AI is – because it can be embedded in your toys, online, it is available if the children have access to it at home and in the community. So, that conversation has to start early. In fact, while we start using AI for learning and allow our children to use AI tools in SLS under supervision from Primary 4, but for AI literacy from MOE's perspective, we start from Primary 1.

I just came back from China last week and previously, I went to Estonia to see their AI leap in action. And in China, for instance, they start at age six, AI literacy as well as basic awareness of its growing pervasiveness throughout, like in toys and other things, so that there is literacy and understanding, and it is done in an age-appropriate way.

And I think, as parents, I know it is a lot on our plate, but we want to be able to do our best for our children and guide them as they interact with all these things at home and in their toys and so on. So, I think that is a conversation that is best started as young as possible.

Ms Elysa Chen.

Thank you, Speaker, and I thank Minister also for sharing the very interesting example of how AI is used to teach creative writing in schools. I wanted to follow up by asking whether the Ministry has established clear guidelines on the responsible use of AI tools by students to avoid infringement of third-party intellectual property (IP) rights. What measures are in place to discourage the use of AI tools to generate content that imitates or reproduces the work of artists and creators without consent and attribution, and whether the Ministry will consider strengthening AI literacy programmes to place greater emphasis on ethical use, including respect for creators' rights and originality?

Certainly, at the primary school level and lower secondary, the use of AI tools are MOE-developed and used in the context of SLS. Of course, we have, through iCON for upper secondary school students, NotebookLM, which is available to upper secondary school students and for which we are monitoring its usage. But through the MOE-developed tools, we are mindful of its safety, its quality of output, its fitness for pedagogical use and of course, in making sure that we avoid infringements of IP and other IP rights.

But ultimately, because some of the more general purpose tools, or for that matter, educational AI tools that are outside the SLS, are trained on a wider universe of knowledge and information; that the AI literacy that is taught to our children all the way till when they are young adults and all the way through the institutes of higher learning, this element of prompting, prompt engineering or usage of the tool in a way that respects IP rights that does not cause offence and that does not infringe the law. All these are things that we need to build in as part of AI literacy all through life.

6 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs whether the Ministry plans to introduce any further laws, regulations or actions to curb the use of Telegram to facilitate a range of illicit and criminal activities, including (i) the sale of drugs, vapes and etomidate (ii) scam operations and (iii) sexual crimes.

Any communication platform can be misused to facilitate criminal activities. To address this, the Government primarily relies on the legal powers under the Online Criminal Harms Act (OCHA).

When online criminal content is detected, the Government can issue OCHA Directions to prevent the offending accounts or content from interacting with users in Singapore. Since the operationalisation of OCHA, the Police have been able to disrupt online criminal activities, including on communication platforms, such as Telegram, more effectively.

The Government also actively engages online communication platforms to implement ex ante measures to prevent scams and malicious cyber activities. Through the OCHA Codes of Practice, designated online services, such as Telegram, must implement appropriate systems, processes and measures to quickly disrupt malicious accounts and activities and prevent their propagation. As part of the continuing efforts against the serious crime situation, the Police are working with designated online service providers, including Telegram, to implement further anti-scam measures under the OCHA Codes of Practice by this year.

The Government will continue to review our laws and regulations to ensure that they remain effective in protecting users in Singapore from online criminal harms.

Mr Nair.

I thank the Minister of State for the response and to explain that the OCHA Directions are being issued to Telegram as well. The only reason I mentioned Telegram specifically is it seems to emerge in a whole range of crimes, including selling of drugs, etomidate, sexual crimes, scams.

I think the Minister of State mentioned scams but it sounds to me like this is an issue with the platform itself. And I will be grateful if the Minister of State believes that the numbers of crimes facilitated on Telegram will be effectively reduced with these additional measures that the Minister of State is saying the Ministry will take.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his supplementary question. I note the particular concern about Telegram. During the Ministry of Home Affairs Committee of Supply debates, we also spoke about Telegram as a platform.

One of the key traits of Telegram is that users can remain anonymous. This is compared to, say, WhatsApp, for example. And for Telegram, I think when we last spoke about this during the Committee of Supply, I also mentioned that we have followed up, for example, I personally have followed up on some of these text messages that I have received on Telegram purportedly selling drugs, for example. And when we followed it up through the Central Narcotics Bureau, we realised that actually many of these offers to sell drugs, even sexual offers, are actually scams masquerading as those offers. What we want to do is, indeed, using scam as the basis to work more closely with platforms, such as Telegram, to really tackle the issue. Many of the powers enabled through OCHA does allow us to follow up on that, and we will do so.

I just want to take the opportunity to reiterate that the anti-scams work is not just a Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) effort. It has involved multiple agencies across the whole of Government, together with industry partners, working very closely. And I think, when I last spoke during the Committee of Supply, we announced a series of measures that we have taken and that we will be taking this year, and we are constantly reviewing what we are doing on this front because we recognise the situation is one that is very concerning.

We want to continue to sustain the downward trend that we have gotten last year, in terms of overall number of victims and total amounts lost. In the first quarter of this year, the numbers have continued that trend; we are slightly heartened. But it is too early for us to celebrate, way too early. There is a lot more work that we need to continue to do on this front.

Like I mentioned earlier, further anti-scam measures are coming out later this year. Within MHA, we are also looking at how we are organised internally to fight scams. More details will be released when ready.

7 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) how does the Ministry address insurers which raise base Integrated Shield Plan premiums, effectively negating new rider savings; (b) what specific mechanisms ensure claims are not unreasonably rejected to mitigate rising costs; and (c) whether the Ministry will mandate greater transparency in premium calculation methods and publicly penalise insurers that engage in unjustifiable price hikes.

8 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry was aware of the intention by insurers to raise base Integrated Shield Plan (IP) premiums at the same time as the required changes to IP rider specifications from 1 April 2026; and (b) if so, whether any and what analysis was done on how base premium increases would interact with rider changes in affecting overall premiums for consumers.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to address Question Nos 7 and 8 in today's Order Paper?

Please proceed.

Integrated Shield Plan (IP) insurers review the premiums of IPs and riders every year. Across a three-year period from December 2021 to December 2024, private hospital IP premiums have been rising every year at an average of 8.6% while private hospital rider premiums have been rising every year at an average of 17.2%.

In line with these trends, some private hospital IP and rider plans were recently repriced. However, with the launch of the new riders, policyholders can save on average 35% to 40% premiums by switching to the new riders. We have responded to previous similar Parliamentary Question Nos 1 to 4 asked by the Members at the 24 September 2025 Sitting, on increases in IP and rider premiums.

To recap, Government's role is to ensure affordable, accessible and quality subsidised healthcare for Singaporeans, with MediShield Life coming in to cover higher bills. IPs and riders are private, commercial products that supplement MediShield Life coverage for unsubsidised healthcare. While the Ministry of Health (MOH) regulates the key parameters of IPs, such as the co-payment and deductible, to ensure that the schemes are sustainable, MOH's general practice is not to intervene in insurers' commercial decisions, such as the setting of premiums.

To Mr Yip's question on claims management, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and MOH require insurance companies to uphold their contractual obligations and process claims in a fair manner. Under MAS' insurance regulations, insurers must notify their policyholders of any change in policy terms and conditions at least 30 days before it takes effect. Should there be disputes over specific claims, policyholders can take it to the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (FIDReC), an independent and impartial institution that assists with insurance-related disputes. MAS will also take action against insurers if they do not pay claims in accordance with policy terms and conditions or have unfair claims handling practices.

Mr Yip.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her reply.

Many Singaporeans are already facing rising premiums year after year. As we have seen recently, even with cheaper riders, base premiums continue increasing. So, households may still have to pay more overall. So, will MOH consider imposing clearer limits or review triggers on premium increases?

My second supplementary question is for older Singaporeans. They face the steepest premium increases and have the least flexibility to change or switch plans. So, will MOH consider introducing additional safeguards, specifically for seniors, and how does the Ministry prevent them from being priced out of coverage that they have relied on for years?

I thank the Member for the question and I acknowledge that there are concerns among Singaporeans about this rising premium costs. But I would like to highlight that the premium increase actually reflects the underlying healthcare cost increases, the healthcare cost pressures and this increase include the increase in the cost because there is an ageing population, because of more expensive technological medical treatments, pharmaceuticals, manpower. So, there is a whole cluster of cost increases because of that.

There is also over-consumption and over-servicing, and that is just a result of over-generous products that we see in the market today. So, this causes increase in the cost of healthcare, which then results in increased claims, which results in increased premiums. Because for this to be sustainable, the providers will have to reprice. Because otherwise, if we artificially limit it, it will not be sustainable. They will not be able to, then, pay out in accordance to what they need to if they do not adjust and make sure that they can sustain in the long run. In the end, this will actually harm the policyholders because they may see reduction in the benefits or even market exits, which is going to be worse.

So, what we do at MOH, is that we do not just look at why these increases are happening. But we are looking at the root causes and trying to address the root causes.

As I mentioned earlier, there are the causes in relation to ageing population, technological advancements and we have measures and levers where we look at getting the most cost-effective products in the market. We are also looking at how we can address the issue of over-servicing, over-consumption by putting in the levers that we have in place, which we have discussed previously in questions the Member has raised before, which includes fee benchmarks, clinical guidance to ensure that appropriate care is given and we enforce against errant providers. We have rider reforms, which the Member has seen; and also, in the works, the development of not-for-profit private hospitals.

So, all these measures, in totality, will help to moderate the increases. But it is a reality that this will happen. We note, though, that there are concerns and we will continue to monitor this and respond accordingly to make sure that healthcare cost remains affordable.

This ties into the second point the Member is making, with regard to seniors. We note they are especially vulnerable, but I just want to assert the point that there are also practical pathways that can be taken because there are options now. Seniors can, at the appropriate juncture, review or right-size their coverage in accordance to their needs as well as to their affordability at that moment in time. There are other options, for example, cheaper riders, that they can look at and perhaps, they can convert to those options.

But in totality, I also want to give the assurance to members of the public and to the Member that no one will be left out or not have access to healthcare, because what is anchoring our healthcare system in Singapore is the fact that there will always be access to subsidised services in the public healthcare sector.

And so, that is an assurance that we give to all Singaporeans, and we will continue to monitor to ensure that there will be affordable healthcare services and it is accessible to all Singaporeans. So, that is not something they can worry about. There is already the S+3M framework that is already in place, so we know that MediShield Life is one, they have their MediSave and if all else fails, there is MediFund.

So, I hope that gives that assurance that we continue to monitor this, but at the same time, we need to appreciate that there are practical realities with regard to premium increases, but we also ensure that nobody will be left out or not to be able to have access to healthcare because of cost pressures.

Dr Hamid Razak.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I thank the Minister of State for the reply.

I generally accept that the Ministry does not want to intervene in the arrangements within private insurance companies and in the private healthcare, but I am coming from an angle of not overburdening the public healthcare. Because we do not want a sudden surge of patients from private healthcare going to the public hospitals.

So, in that regard, I would like to ask if the Ministry has studied the components of bill sizes that have contributed to the recent increase in medical costs in the private healthcare. Because we have had measures to cool down, for example, the cost attributed to doctor's fee sizes with fee benchmarks as well as panel arrangements. So, has the Ministry studied whether other components – for example, facility costs, consumable costs and whether these have been riding steadily and whether there are plans to have similar benchmarks for these bill size components?

Following on to that, can I also ask the Ministry whether it has studied the effects of the panel arrangements on whether they have equitably kept doctors' fee sizes manageable compared to the fee benchmark that the Ministry already has? Because my worry is that with entrenching panel behaviours by insurers, that we are also limiting access to equitable healthcare in the private sector.

I thank the Member for the questions. On his first point about the components of healthcare costs in the private sector, we are indeed looking at the different dimensions. We already have some robust fee benchmarks on the professional fees front. We are reviewing to see if there is a need and if there are some ways for us to also put in benchmarks in the other components of the other costs.

On the panel arrangement, I believe we had a discussion also in a previous Sitting about why this came about. Really, it is going back to the whole big picture about insurers moderating the costs and how they can remain sustainable. Because claims are high and because there is over-consumption, over-servicing, they then need to make sure that they are moderating their costs. And this becomes an administrative effort in their effort to try and moderate the payouts by actually empanelling members so that they can limit their cost to those who fit their structures.

This remains something that will be an enduring feature because this is a market reaction to something that is causing a pressure on the insurer's part. So, while we will take a position where we must protect the consumers and there must be fairness in all interactions with the panel doctors. We do this in many different ways. As the Member know, we are quite robust in actually putting errant doctors to task, if, let us say, they have not done it properly. We are sending out clinical guidelines to make sure that people are following proper care protocols and not just treating based on what they have as insurance policies.

So, these are all multi-pronged approaches and efforts that we are putting in place to ensure that we are responding to some of the concerns in this space. It is just a symptom, so the underlying cost pressures still need to be addressed. The description that we had put earlier in the past is that it is a knot that we need to untangle; and that is something we are doing with a multi-pronged, with engagements with different parties and stakeholders.

Dr Hamid Razak, you have a short supplementary question to ask?

I just want to mention for the record that I declare that I am an orthopaedic surgeon in private practice, and also a visiting consultant at public healthcare institutions.

Noted. Last supplementary question, Mr Andre Low.

Thank you, Speaker. My supplementary question to the Minister of State is, I accept that a primary driver of premium increases is rising healthcare costs. But there is also other levers, such as reducing administrative costs at insurers themselves. So, the insurance industry as a whole has a big effort towards driving down administrative costs, third-party processor costs, claims processing costs, things like that.

Has the Ministry considered policy levers to incentivise insurers to have these cost savings pass on to consumers in the form of moderating premium increases, or even reducing premiums, as opposed to these cost savings directly going to insurers' profit margins?

We engage the insurance providers quite regularly, but we are very mindful about where we intervene, especially because they need to be competitive and there is a commercial dimension to it, which we feel that we should respect. So, how we intervene is via the conditions that are put in place vis-a-vis the consumers. We note how there should be adherence to deductibles as well as the co-payment.

So, these are things that we take a measured approach on. What the Member suggests is a dimension of the cost components. I will not preclude us from having just general conversations with insurers. But I just wanted to express the point that, while we do engage insurers quite robustly, we are very conscious about the fact that we also have to draw a line somewhere because it is a commercial product and we have to have them remain competitive.

9 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information in light of the US Court's finding that Meta and Alphabet were negligent in designing platforms that harmed young people, whether the Government will consider action to regulate young people's access to social media platforms, including a potential ban on such use.

Mr Speaker, the question by Mr Vikram Nair on the Government's measures to enhance safeguards for children and adolescence when they go on social media platforms, have been addressed in the written reply to Question No 40 for oral answer as well as Question Nos 36 and 37 for written answer at yesterday's Sitting. The answer given also addresses related questions for written answer by Mr Louis Chua and Miss Elysa Chen in today's Order Paper. The Member may wish to refer to the answer given.

Mr Nair.

Thank you, and I thank the Minister of State for flagging the answer to me as well. So, I have a supplementary question. The answer was that the Ministry is engaging the digital service providers as well as preparing advisories for parents.

These are commendable efforts, but the judgment in the United States was actually quite damning, in that it said social media platforms, in particular, Google and Meta, were responsible for creating addictive platforms that caused mental health issues for the young plaintiff concerned. All our youths are equally exposed to these platforms and while it is helpful to, I guess, engage the alleged perpetrators as well as engage parents, it may be necessary for the Ministry to take a harder stance and draw a firm boundary, like some other countries have done, to say that social media should be restricted for young people and then you talk after that.

I thank the Member for the question. I just want to highlight that, indeed, we are taking reference from the judgment, from the decision, and the information that we are seeing, the findings, actually add to the growing body of evidence. We know that the harms are real and we are taking it seriously.

So, it is not that we are not doing anything. We have been acting on protecting and safeguarding our young children from the harms online.

But we take a different approach in that we also want something that is more effective. A more durable approach that will withstand the test of time and the test of evolution of the technologies. Because, as what the Member pointed out, what we have found from the decisions was that there were some specific features and dimensions of the social media platforms that actually impact the youths.

So, it is not just about saying, "Okay, none at all". There are certain dimensions of it that causes the harm. And so, our approach targets the specific harms and the specific design features that produce them, and so this is also calibrated by the age of the user. And this is actually more demanding, more rigorous than a blanket ban. Because if you just say, "Okay, do not use it at all", you may not even solve the problem. What we are trying to do is to look at what is it that is causing the harm. Our approach has always been one that is outcomes-driven.

And we have been building progressively on this. As I have said, we are not starting from a blank slate. We already have the Code of Practice for Online Safety, for the social media services. We introduced age assurance for apps and we also have the annual reporting that the designated social media services have to provide to us. In recent times, based on their reporting, we have actually acted against X and TikTok. So, that shows that there is a mechanism for us to actually take action.

Moving forward, we are going to be extending the age assurance measures to the designated social media services and looking beyond the content, to the design features. We are going to understand it a bit better. These are the things that are actually causing the harms the direct messaging from strangers, auto-play, other features that drive excessive use, emerging risks from AI companions and all that. So, we are actually going to break it down and see how we can improve it.

Having said that, we are not foreclosing the decision on a ban, because we will do whatever it takes to protect our young ones. And if there is a need for stronger action, we will take it. But we are learning robustly from many different countries. Minister Desmond Lee made reference to Estonia, his visit to Estonia. Estonia is a country that we look up to, because it is quite advanced.

And so, this idea of a blanket or social media ban is not a globally accepted position. Estonia has not applied it; in fact, I think Belgium as well as the state of New York. There are different approaches internationally. In fact, Australia has also amended its legislation to be a bit more targeted, looking at the design features.

So, firstly, we are not starting on a blank slate. We do have safeguards in place and we do not think just rushing into having a ban may necessarily be the best thing. We are not foreclosing it as a decision, but we are studying what is more effective to achieve the desired outcome that you will want to see.

Moving on. Mr Melvin Yong.

10 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in light of heat wave conditions in neighbouring countries such as Malaysia and Thailand (a) what is the Ministry's assessment of the risk of similar heat wave events affecting Singapore; and (b) whether there are plans to enhance advance warning systems for weather-dependent sectors.

Sustainability and the Environment): Mr Speaker, Sir, in Singapore, a heat wave is declared when the daily maximum temperature averaged across all weather stations is at least 35oC for three consecutive days and the average daily mean temperature throughout the period is at least 29oC. Based on the weather outlook, the chance of a heat wave occurring in Singapore during the remainder of the 2026 hot season, which ends in May, is low.

The Meteorological Service Singapore (MSS) issues fortnightly outlooks and four-day forecasts of weather conditions, including high temperatures. MSS also closely monitors climate phenomena, such as El Niño, and works with the Mercury Taskforce to issue advisories, including to weather-dependent sectors, if it expects extended periods of high temperatures.

The Government has heat stress management initiatives on an ongoing basis regardless of whether a heat wave is forecasted. This includes the Heat Stress Advisory which provides simple tips for the general public to plan prolonged outdoor activities based on prevailing heat stress levels, complemented by sector-specific measures, such as the Ministry of Manpower's (MOM's) heat stress framework for outdoor work.

Mr Yong.

Thank you, Sir. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Sir, recent reports indicate that parts of Southeast Asia, including Thailand, have experienced extreme heat conditions, with the heat index level exceeding 50oC, and therefore being classified as posing serious danger to human health.

So, in view of this developments, may I ask the Senior Minister of State: one, given that Singapore's current approach is based on a heat stress advisory, whether the Ministry considers this sufficiently robust and actionable, or if there are plans to introduce a more formalised alert system, with clear thresholds and corresponding response measures? Are there also plans to increase the number of sensors that we put around various parts of Singapore?

My second question relates to Singapore being a highly urbanised city-state. I would like to ask whether the Ministry has assessed how the urban heat island (UHI) effect may amplify heat stress in Singapore and how this risk is currently being factored into our national heat resilience planning?

And lastly, on worker protection, can the Senior Minister of State clarify whether existing heat stress guidelines for employers remain adequate in the event of a more prolonged or intense heat conditions? Because I note that current heat stress measures are focused more on outdoor workers. Will the Government consider extending more formal protections or guidance to other at-risk sectors, such as indoor, non-air-conditioned workplaces, because most of our factories are non-air-conditioned, as well as for delivery riders who spend a lot of time outdoors?

Sir, I thank Mr Melvin Yong for his questions. He first asked about the advisory and whether it needed to be more formal, and whether it was robust and actionable. I would characterise our position thus: and I would say it is robust, it is formalised, it is actionable. Of course, we will continue to improve it. We have had the Mercury Taskforce – it was reported in the news, discussed in this Chamber since 2023 – and this brings together public sector agencies, more than 30, looking at what are the various response plans that are sector-specific, domain-specific and under the regulatory aegis of the various agencies.

The heat advisory that goes out is clearly defined. In my original answer, I explained what a heat wave was. There are clear definitions that we have been using in Singapore since 2016, if I recall. It was then last revised in 2023. And so, it is objective, it is measurable, it is specific. [Please refer to ​"Clarification by Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment", Official Report, 6 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 30, Correction By Written Statement section.]

And then, agencies – he cited the example of MOM looking at outdoor workers – have developed action plans. These then are triggered by the information that is provided by the MSS. So, MSS, the National Environmental Agency, has a certain set of definitions. When the thresholds are reached, advisories are issued that fall into certain pre-specified categories. And then, various agencies and regulatory bodies will activate their action plan.

So, the formalised, robust, actionable processes are already there. Of course, as related to his later questions, these can and will be improved. And I will speak about that in a minute.

He asked about the number of sensors. We have relatively good coverage. The Member can file a separate Parliamentary Question (PQ), a written PQ perhaps, about the specific number. From memory, I think we have 19 weather stations. Historically, not all of them were used for heat reporting, but today, all of them are, for air temperature. And then, we have, if I recall, another 27 Wet-Bulb Globe Temperature stations across Singapore. So, our overall coverage for sensors is pretty good.

Again, this issue of the data that we get, as well as the answers to his other two questions – whether we need to study the UHI effect on our action plans and whether we have adequate worker protections against heat stress – these issues are the sorts of things that the Heat Resilience Policy Office that we announced in the Committee of Supply this year will indeed coordinate across the whole-of-Government, to look and to see how we make sure our action plans for heat resilience adapt to the changing environment and to the changing risk environment that the Member described in his supplementary question.

So, the short answer to the second half of his first supplementary question is about the sense-making, as well as his other two questions – this is work that the Heat Resilience Policy Office will indeed be taking up.

11 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Minister for Education given the need to inculcate a habit amongst Singaporeans to plan ahead for their own skills, whether the four hours per year of curriculum time for Education and Career Guidance in secondary schools can be increased with support from external vendors, to expose students to more career opportunities, so that young Singaporeans can start dreaming of possibilities earlier in life.

The Ministry of Education (MOE) recognises the importance of guiding students to develop a greater awareness of their strengths and their interests, and explore various education and career pathways at each stage of their educational journey.

Curriculum time that is spent on education and career guidance (ECG) is complemented by student development experiences beyond the classroom. These can include visits to institutes of higher learning, career fairs and talks, learning journeys to organisations and job-shadowing opportunities. Through these programmes, industry practitioners are able to share their experiences and highlight skills required in their respective fields, giving our students early exposure to career possibilities.

To support students in self-directed exploration, the MySkillsFuture Student Portal is available to students from Primary 5. Tertiary students have access to the MySkillsFuture Workforce Portal. Through its suite of tools, students can deep dive into self-discovery, understand their own interests, values and abilities, and explore the range of education and career pathways available to them.

Access to ECG counsellors is also available to students from secondary schools and pre-university institutions who require more guidance in exploring suitable education pathways and career possibilities.

MOE reviews our curriculum regularly and we will continue to review curriculum time allocation to ensure that students are well-supported in their holistic development, including in education and career guidance.

Mr Loh.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her response as well. I asked this question because when I first looked into the issue, four hours seemed short. But the Minister of State has clarified that there is more ECG than just the four hours of curriculum time, so I am grateful.

We discussed extensively about skills and careers yesterday, and I am sure we will do so more today. The Minister for Manpower said, no less than five times in his speech, that we need mindset shifts. And shifting mindsets start from school. So, my question to MOE is whether ECG is considered core to the curriculum, and not extra. And if so, can we increase the standards and the resources for ECG? Because we teach chemistry very well, and maybe we can do the same with career guidance. We teach geography very well, and maybe we can do the same for job awareness.

Sir, I thank the Member for his question. I think there are many skills that are key to our students' future development and career success, so this is not a competition between subjects. We must ensure that all students have good access to both knowledge acquisition as well as career preps for the future.

As I mentioned in my reply, we will be continuing to review curriculum time allocation, and all the more we need to do so in the age of artificial intelligence, where a lot more focus will be on human skills that are increasingly important for our students.

12 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for National Development with the roll-out of more electric vehicle (EV) charging points in HDB car parks and the proliferation of EVs, what measures are put in place to ensure that HDB car parks adhere to safety standards in the case of electric fires from EVs and EV chargers.

Sir, all Housing and Development Board (HDB) car parks are designed and constructed in compliance with the prevailing Fire Code stipulated by the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF).

This includes provisions such as hose reels, fire engine access and natural or mechanical ventilation to disperse smoke and heat. These fire safety provisions safeguard against fire risks, including those that may arise from electric vehicles (EVs).

All EV chargers installed in HDB car parks must comply with the technical specifications and safety requirements under the Technical Reference 25, which is the nation-wide standard governing EV charging systems in Singapore.

Ms Yeo.

Thank you, Speaker. Could the Minister of State elaborate on the specific fire safety protocols in place for HDB car parks with EV charging points, including detection, suppression and evacuation measures?

And additionally, as EV adoption grows, how will standards be regularly reviewed and enforced, and whether there are plans to equip our neighbourhood, SCDF's and emergency response teams, which may include grassroots organisations like the People's Association's Community Emergency and Engagement (C2E), or even SCDF's First Responders with enhanced capabilities or training to respond appropriately to EV-related fire incidents? I do note that the risk may be quite different from normal cooking or lighted cigarette fires, which our grassroots organisations are more used to.

Sir, I have answered the Member's questions specific to HDB car parks. Specifically, I think, with the provision of hose reels, fire engine access, natural and mechanical ventilations that will help in the event of a fire, and that the HDB carparks must comply with these technical specifications and safety requirements under Technical Reference 25.

I would also like to point her, if she has further questions with regard to overall EV fire safety and fire safety as a whole, to the Ministry of Home Affairs' replies in Parliament on the matter. But I would say, and as the Member knows, that SCDF works with the community to raise general awareness on fire safety. That includes working with first responders, People's Association's C2E and other community groups.

The Land Transport Authority and SCDF also regularly review these fire safety requirements to support the overall adoption of EV in Singapore through their multi-agency EV Battery Safety Taskforce.

13 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether inter-agency coordination is in place to support the timely deployment of electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure in new housing estates as towns are progressively occupied; and (b) whether the Government will consider provisioning key supporting infrastructure earlier upfront to enable faster deployment in newer towns such as Tengah as resident demand builds up.

The Government targets to deploy 60,000 electric vehicle (EV) charging points by 2030, which comprise 40,000 in public car parks, and 20,000 in private premises. As of March 2026, there are 30,500 EV charging points deployed in Singapore. We are on track to achieving our 2030 target in tandem with the growing demand for EVs.

The Land Transport Authority (LTA) monitors EV adoption rates closely and coordinates with agencies such as the Energy Market Authority, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) and JTC to deploy EV charges and key supporting infrastructure. For car parks with high demand, LTA will work with EV charger operators to deploy more chargers, electrical capacity permitting. By end 2027, there will also be at least one fast charging hub in every HDB town.

Dr Choo.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you to Senior Minister of State for the response. In Tengah, many residents have approached me on EV charging infrastructure. Tengah residents who already own EVs have shared that having charging points closer to home would make daily life much more convenient. And others are keen to make the switch, but are waiting for charging infrastructure to become more accessible. As Tengah grows, this will only become increasingly more important because residents want to embrace greener living.

I have two supplementary questions. First, could the Senior Minister of State share how feedback from estates such as Tengah is operationally translated into changes in the planning and sequencing of EV charging deployment? And second, what adjustments have been made in inter-agency coordination to improve implementation in newer estates such as Tengah?

I thank Member Dr Choo Pei Ling for raising feedback from her Tengah residents. Currently, two multi-storey car parks in Tengah have EV chargers, and LTA subsidiary, EV-Electric (EVe) Charging Pte Ltd, is in the process of deploying EV chargers in another eight multi-storey car parks in Tengah.

We have taken into account the feedback from Tengah residents and are improving the process for new Build-To-Order (BTO) estates. So, for instance, starting from BTOs that obtained Temporary Occupation Permit (TOP) since last month, there is now a new arrangement, where LTA subsidiary EVe works closely with HDB to start deploying EV chargers from the point that residents start collecting their keys – so, at the point of TOP. This will allow residents moving into new BTO estates to actually gain access to EV chargers earlier.

14 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the public sector’s procurement frameworks for service contracts such as catering will be reviewed to ensure other factors beyond price, which may include Progressive Wage Model compliance and service quality, are given meaningful weightage; and (b) whether public sector buyers will adopt outcome-based contracts with provisions for periodic price reviews and longer terms to support sustainable wage and productivity investments.

The Government uses a comprehensive set of criteria, combining price and quality considerations in procurement evaluations. For some sectors, eligible Government suppliers must have the Progressive Wage Mark (PWM) certification. Central guidance has been provided to all Government procuring entities to adopt outcome-based contracts where appropriate and feasible, and to consider the adoption of more productive technology. Examples of this are in the procurement of cleaning services and facilities management services.

For multi-year contracts, tenderers are typically able to submit prices for each contract year, rather than a single fixed price over the entire duration. This allows tenderers to account for wage adjustments and productivity investments over time in their pricing.

Ms Yeo.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. Could the Ministry give further clarifications on how it assesses PWM compliance in procurement processes, including whether firms have met, for example, training requirements for their workers under the PWM requirements?

And the other one too, is well, I know he has talked about how Government contracts allow for re-negotiations, but are there other ways to make the procurement framework more agile to accommodate such changes, especially when we are looking at different wage rungs and different types of negotiations that have been done by PWM over the years?

I thank the Member for the question. Contractors who are PW Mark eligible are required to obtain and maintain the PW Mark throughout the contract period. They are also required to notify the contracting authorities if there are any changes to their PW Mark status.

For Government agencies, we reserve the right to take necessary action if contractors fail to comply with the requirements, including the right to terminate the contract.

For multi-year contracts, I would like to emphasise again, contractors should account for the price increases when they tender. Where there are further updates to the PW Mark requirements, the Ministry of Finance will review our guidance to agencies accordingly, where necessary.

15 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry will conduct a study on the negative health impact of sustained exposure to second-hand smoke from neighbouring HDB units particularly on children and the elderly; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider issuing official guidelines on such negative health impact to inform future policies on regulating smoking out of windows in HDB flats.

Mr Speaker, the health harms of second-hand smoke are well established in the scientific literature, where sustained exposure has been associated with health conditions such as respiratory illness, cardiovascular diseases and cancers, such as breast and lung cancer.

The health effects of prolonged exposure to second-hand smoke was previously addressed in the Ministry of Health's (MOH's) answer to oral Question No 12 during Parliamentary Sitting on 2 October 2018. There are currently no plans to issue official guidelines on the negative health impact of second-hand smoke. Nonetheless, MOH has been working closely with the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) and the National Environment Agency (NEA) to address smoking related public health concerns.

MSE and NEA have progressively prohibited smoking at more than 49,000 public places, including most common areas of residential buildings, such as common corridors and void decks, to reduce the public's exposure to second-hand smoke.

Mr Loh.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her reply. In my view, second-hand smoke is a scourge in our heartlands. I note that the last time the Ministry replied on this matter was in 2018 and there was a review done then. I do not believe the issue has improved and I was wondering why there are no plans to do so again. Both sides of the House actually have raised this issue in the House very recently. When I looked into the issue a bit more, we were asking about whether we could do more in our HDB flats, but we had not yet confirmed what threshold would lead to a public health concern, including what a threshold of duration qualifies as prolonged.

So, could MOH reconsider whether it is then timely to make a clear statement on the threshold of how much second-hand smoke is bad enough, and how long the exposure should be before it is bad enough – so that we can then make good policies in our heartlands?

I thank Member for the question and I appreciate his concerns because I also face similar complaints at the Meet-the-People Session and when I meet my residents. I do agree that it is an issue that we do want to address meaningfully, because we do still see some smokers in the residential estates and people who are living in the flats still trapped.

I do want to state, though, that in as far as the scientific or the medical opinion on the matter is concerned, we are very clear. The negative health impact of second-hand smoke is very well established. It is something we do not want and exposure is bad. So, it is really a function of how we then translate it and operationalise it into protecting our people.

Because the Member's question is not about us not doing anything about it; the question is about issuing guidelines. And in respect of guidelines, while there are no official guidelines and there are no plans to issue official guidelines, we already take into consideration this health impact as we are rolling out policies. And our policies come in multiple forms, including how we issue advisories or how we support with the I Quit Programmes, how we also address these matters in our health promotion activities.