Hansard, Monday, 4 March 2024

1 Ms Usha Chandradas asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth what is the estimated dollar value of the net economic return expected from Government grants and subsidies issued to pop singer Taylor Swift and her team, with the aim of motivating them to hold Swift's The Eras Tour concerts in Singapore in 2024.

2 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what is the total economic value-add expected from Taylor Swift's The Eras Tour concerts in Singapore; and (b) how were the size and conditionality of the grant offered by the Government to bring the tour to Singapore determined.

3 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what is the total economic value-add expected from concerts held in Singapore in the first half of 2024; (b) whether the Ministry has set a target for the total economic value-add derived from hosting concerts in Singapore for the full year; (c) if so, whether the Ministry expects to be on track to achieve the full-year target; and (d) what are the Ministry's strategies to remain on track to achieve its target amidst intense regional competition.

4 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth whether the Ministry is looking into ways to make concerts by marquee acts such as Coldplay and Taylor Swift in Singapore more inclusive and accessible for Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker, with your permission, may I take Parliamentary Question Nos 1 to 4 together?

Please proceed.

Thank you, Sir. Sir, the Government took over the Singapore Sports Hub in 2022, with the vision: one, to establish Singapore and the Sports Hub as the leading sports and entertainment destination in the region; two, to inculcate a strong sense of affinity between Singaporeans and the Sports Hub; and three, to maximise synergies across the suite of facilities in the broader Kallang Alive precinct, in order to better activate the precinct.

Kallang Alive Sport Management (KASM), the entity that was put in charge of operating the Sports Hub after Government takeover, set out to be more than simply a venue for hire. KASM has a team which actively identifies and curates suitable content and programmes, and brings them into Singapore. Our aim is to bring a whole spectrum of events to Kallang for Singaporeans, from top-tier marquee events to community-related ones, and from music concerts to sporting and social events. Since we took over, the Sports Hub has seen a 30% increase in sports, entertainment, and community and lifestyle event days since the Government takeover, compared to the best number of event days prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

There were some questions at takeover around whether the Sports Hub would be able to continue to attract top-tier events into Singapore. In the last year, apart from the ongoing Taylor Swift concerts, we have brought in several world class acts, such as Mayday, Coldplay, Ed Sheeran and Jacky Cheung. We have also brought in marquee sporting events, including the FIBA Intercontinental Cup that came to Asia for the first time in 2023, the Super 750 Series Singapore Badminton Open, HSBC Sevens Singapore, WTT Singapore Smash, of which the third edition will begin sometime later this week, and innovative concepts, such as fitness racing series Hyrox.

In the case of Taylor Swift, we moved fast and early to bring her show into Singapore. We did so as we recognised the large Swifties fanbase in Singapore and in the region and were keen to deliver the concert experience to them, right here at the Sports Hub.

The idea for A-list marquee events to be staged at the Sports Hub was conceived of even before the Government takeover in December 2022, as we recognised the tremendous upside of such concerts to Singapore.

In February 2023, my colleagues and I from the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY), SportSG and KASM went to the United States (US) to study the sport and entertainment industry. When the opportunity to discuss holding a Taylor Swift concert in Singapore came up, we broached it immediately, subsequently discussed it in detail and, thereafter, reached an agreement for Singapore to be one of Taylor Swift’s tour stops. We also saw the opportunity to make this a uniquely Singapore experience and it hence made sense to take a whole-of-Government approach and subsequently, other agencies, such as the Singapore Tourism Board (STB), were brought in.

STB undertook its own assessment of the potential benefits of bringing the concert to Singapore and subsequently offered a grant to the concert promoter. STB assesses whether to give grants on a case-by-case basis, judiciously weighing up the benefits which might accrue to Singapore if the event was brought in. There has been some online speculation as to the size of the grant. I can say that it is not accurate and not anywhere as high as speculated but due to business confidentiality reasons, we cannot reveal the specific size of the grant or the conditions of the grant.

However, I can assure Members of the House that the economic benefits to Singapore are assessed to be significant and outweigh the size of the grant. The direct economic benefits include, for instance, additional tourist arrivals and additional spending on tickets, flights, hotel stays as well as entertainment, retail and dining in Singapore. Other cities which have hosted Taylor Swift concerts similarly reported an increase in economic activity arising from the concerts and we would expect the same in Singapore. Several market analysts have estimated a dollar range of the economic upside which we are likely to see from the staging of the concerts and whilst the event has not yet concluded, these may well be right.

In addition, beyond the tourism and economic benefits, being able to host A-list artistes, such as Taylor Swift, will help position Singapore as a cultural hub in Southeast Asia, capable of hosting a range of different arts, music and culture events, as well as major sporting and lifestyle events. This helps to brand Singapore as a fun, vibrant destination.

The Straits Times noted, for instance, that the benefits include, I quote, “economic growth, cultural enrichment, to global recognition”, whilst Nikkei Asia reported that the concerts, I quote, “underscore the city-state’s growing status as a pop culture destination”. The Business Times also noted that these events made us, I quote, “look like a modern, open-minded and vibrant place”.

I would add that grants alone would not decide where a performer goes. Promoters of top artistes will do their own calculations and assess where they want to perform and for how long. One major consideration is the location, which is key. There are many reasons why world-class artistes choose to host large-scale concerts in Singapore. These include Singapore’s strategic location, quality infrastructure, good amenities, safety, efficiency and diverse cultural offerings. KASM also proactively works with the artistes and promoters to make their experience of performing in Singapore a good one. All of this helps when attracting top-class events into Singapore.

Singapore faces intense regional competition for these concerts and other such events, and we will need to continue investing in our infrastructure and software to continue attracting marquee entertainment, lifestyle and sporting events into Singapore.

Sir, I want to add, before I conclude, that KASM’s mission goes beyond adding economic value to Singapore. It also extends to building Singaporeans’ affinity with the Sports Hub, as I said at the outset. We are exploring ways for more Singaporeans from all backgrounds to enjoy marquee acts. To Mr Xie Yao Quan's specific question, for some concerts including high demand ones like Coldplay and Taylor Swift, KASM retains some tickets and works with SportCares, which is SportSG's charity and philanthropic arm, SG Cares Volunteer Centres, SouthEast Community Development Centre and other organisations to give tickets to beneficiaries from lower-income families or at-risk families, as well as volunteers from these organisations, so that they too can be a part of the Sports Hub experience.

On other occasions, we have also activated areas in the precinct to allow other members of the community to bask in the atmosphere. This includes both entertainment events, such as the Taylor Swift concerts, as well as sporting events. For example, at the Singapore Smash 2023, we had community activations at the OCBC Square and also across the island with tables set up at 18 venues through Singapore whilst the main event was happening at the Sports Hub. This provided Singaporeans with the opportunity to try their hand at table tennis and doing it on the same top-class tables that were used by the best players in the world.

Beyond marquee entertainment and sports events, KASM has a dedicated team that looks at delivering more community programmes. While we cover a range of top-tier events that are ticketed, there are also non-ticketed and non-revenue-generating events, such as the large-scale festivals during Chinese New Year, Hari Raya and Deepavali. This ensures that we have strong social return by providing programmes for everyone to bond, interact and build affinity with the Sports Hub. For example, Sports Hub had hosted a record 43 National School Games (NSG) Finals event days in FY2023. That is more than twice the number of 16 NSG finals event days before COVID-19, which stood at 60.

Sir, MCCY, SportSG and KASM will work hard, continue to hustle and do our best to bring top-class events here, but also continue to make the Sports Hub even more accessible to all Singaporeans.

Ms Usha Chandradas.

Sir, first of all, let me thank the Government for its very hard work in bringing all these top-tier events to Singapore. I think the community really appreciates the work that has been done. I have two supplementary questions for the Minister.

First of all, as part of the terms and conditions of the deal that was struck to bring Taylor Swift to Singapore exclusively with the support of Government grants, was there the potential to include the involvement and profiling of local musicians? So, for example, when Coldplay performed earlier this year, local musicians featured as opening acts; when Ed Sheeran performed in Singapore, he famously did a duet with JJ Lin and he also profiled a watch strap that was made by a local company. So, my question is, were similar cross-marketing opportunities contemplated when negotiating with Ms Swift's team and if not, is it something that the Government can keep in mind for future concert deals?

My second question relates to the disclosure of the terms of the deal that was struck between Ms Swift's team and the Singapore Government. As we have seen in the news, the exclusivity clauses have struck a nerve with some of our neighbouring countries and caused some amount of tension. So, my questions are these: were confidentiality clauses about the exclusivity arrangements built into the contracts and if they were, were these terms breached? And if so, will the Government be taking any enforcement action against the relevant parties?

I thank Ms Usha Chandradas for her comments. On her first question on cross-marketing, obviously, where possible, we would endeavour to do so. And that is why we have seen, in the case of Coldplay, having a local opening act. In other cases as well, what we try and do on some occasion is, even if we cannot do it at the main event itself, at the periphery, on non-event days or in the lead-up or build-up to the A-list event that takes place in Singapore, we try to involve as many local artistes as possible. The Member has brought up some examples, and we will continue to do so.

In the case of artistes, very often the terms and conditions stipulate not just who is performing, their overall set-up, but also the opening act for each of the performers. So, in those cases, we will not be able to change the sequence or change the identity of the performers. But rest assured that when we can, we will endeavour to expose our local artistes to such platforms.

On the second point, yes, there is a confidentiality agreement and we will assess the terms, and we will take the appropriate measures under advisement.

Mr Xie Yao Quan.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, I must thank the Minister for personally leading the Singapore delegation to Los Angeles to negotiate a deal to bring in The Eras Tour. I think that is a huge personal involvement on his part and I thank him for that.

I would like to quote the Chairman of KASM, Mr Keith Magnus, who said that there is now a new DNA and passion that has been brought into the operating culture of the organisation, and to quote him, "we are constantly in deal mode." I fully support this basic orientation to go out and make deals and hustle. So, in line with that orientation and to my original question on whether there is a target for the total economic value-add from the concert economy that we are trying to grow in Singapore, could the Minister perhaps shed a bit more light on whether we should consider setting a more tangible target in terms of deal volume and deal flow, even if not economic value-add, the numbers that we expect to see from the concert economy that we are trying to grow in Singapore?

Sir, I thank Mr Xie for his remarks. He has raised an important point, but I think we should also set it in context. When we first considered the idea of taking back the Sports Hub, there were questions around whether we had a team who would be able to engage with some of the world's top artistes and promoters. Were we able to do this with large-scale crowds? Not forgetting that, as we were embarking on these plans, we were still in the midst of dealing with COVID-19. And so, when we looked at the plans overall, obviously, those are factors that had to be taken into account. Eventually, I think it is important for us to work out a broader horizon, mid-term through to long-term, and understand where we want to go in terms of targets. And we will do that.

But I want to stress to Mr Xie that, as I said at the outset of my answer, KASM is not trying to deal with the Sports Hub only for economic return. To us, it is equally important that we have social return to the Sports Hub. To give the Member an example of how we have been able to achieve this, we work with top-tier marquee events, obviously high and good revenue-generating events. Coldplay, Ed Sheeran, Jackie Cheung and Taylor Swift, being some examples.

But in doing so and in making that revenue, we are able to plough it back into non-revenue-generating but highly impactful social events. I gave the example of the National School Games taking place at the Sports Hub. Almost three times the number of events compared to the best prior to COVID-19 days. All of that brings a certain feeling and resonance of school athletes to be playing at the top venue in Singapore at the Sports Hub.

I have given this example to the media as well. Last year, we worked with the schools to stage the rugby finals right after the Singapore Sevens. So, we had a pitch that was world-class. We had a venue that was world-class, finished on Sunday with the finals. On Monday or Tuesday, the schools stepped in. And because we were able to host it without the financial restrictions in particular that we had before, we had 8,000 school children at the arena, at the stadium, supporting and cheering on their schools. I was there and I think the feeling of camaraderie, the feeling of togetherness, being able to cheer your top athletes at such a forum is something that we value tremendously.

So, these and other examples are what we want to go for, using the Sports Hub as a draw, as a vehicle and as an asset that the Government can use right across the spectrum and also combining it with non-Sports Hub facilities. For example, the rest of Kallang Alive, the precinct which I mentioned, there are parts which can be activated in support of and in tandem with the Sports Hub.

So, all these are the main motivations for KASM when they do their calculations for events for any particular given year.

I am trying to move the Parliamentary Questions (PQs) along. We are still at the first set of PQs. So, I will allow for a few more supplementary questions, but please keep them succinct and, likewise, replies to be succinct. Mr Gerald Giam.

Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply. I assume he is answering the question that I filed for tomorrow as well.

Sir, given that Singapore is such an attractive destination for marquee events, why is there even a need to give taxpayer-funded grants to attract them?

And secondly, did the Government negotiate to make Taylor Swift's The Eras Tour the only blank space in Southeast Asia and did it realise that this may be perceived by some of our neighbours as being mean?

Sir, I will try not to make my answer the 10-minute version. Mr Giam filed a question for tomorrow with the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) on STB's position on grants. That will be taken separately. So, I am not answering on behalf of STB.

On the Member's two questions, well, let me deal with the second, which I think is also related to the first question. The real question is this: you have to make your calculations and work out what is in Singapore's and Singaporeans' best interests. If you do not have a certain economy of scale to play in Singapore over "x" number of nights for a period of time, you would not be able to reap the economies of scale. Then, there is going to be a very different balance to the considerations. The concert might take place in Singapore but for far fewer nights, or it might not even take place at all in Singapore.

So, we have to look at the overall calculation and decide, for a particular event, what is the resonance with Singapore and Singaporeans? What international, regional draw might it have? We make this calculation overall and it is not in every case that we decide that we need to make a grant or we need to negotiate in a particular way. Every event, whether it is lifestyle, sporting, arts, culture or music, has a different consideration. We are motivated by different outcomes that we want to achieve. So, whether we shape it in one way, give a grant in another way or organise our framework to host the event in a particular way, all that is shaped by the outcomes that we want to achieve.

In this case, we were mindful that if we looked at it holistically, if we wanted an opportunity for Singapore to be one of the stops, and then you look at the past tour history, it is very difficult to be one or two nights alone because of the setup. So, we had to look at that as quite a material consideration for discussing with the Taylor Swift team on how long and for what duration to host it in Singapore. And then we also have to judge what is the demand that we have in the local market.

So, these, I hope, explain to Mr Giam some of the suite of considerations that we have in deciding how to approach this, which events to put a grant out to, on what terms, how to structure it and also taking into account the overall demand and objectives in Singapore.

5 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there have been any reports of the use of nasal inhalers or “energy sticks” in Singapore, especially amongst children and students; and (b) whether the Ministry has studied (i) the effects of such inhalers and (ii) the need to treat them like vaporisers and e-cigarettes.

Sir, my response will also cover matters raised in the written question by Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim1 for a subsequent Sitting.

“Energy stick” nasal inhalers claim to give users an energy boost. They contain ingredients that are similar to the conventional nasal decongestant inhaler. The Ministry of Health and the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) are closely monitoring their use, especially when the marketing on social media and its availability of flavours target the young. We will continue to evaluate these products to ensure they are not adulterated with harmful ingredients, such as nicotine, as they evolve, and we will take the necessary actions to protect public health.

6 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Social and Family Development regarding the POFMA Correction Direction issued on 15 February 2024 that contained details of a couple’s financial situation, including their CPF and MediSave balances, (a) how does this level of disclosure align with the privacy protection standards under the Public Sector (Governance) Act (PSGA); and (b) whether the Ministry considers the detailed personal financial disclosure necessary given that it can lead to identification of the couple concerned.

Mr Speaker, it is unclear why the Member believes that referring to the Central Provident Fund (CPF) balances of an anonymous couple would lead to their identification. To be clear, the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) Correction Direction issued on 15 February 2024 did not identify the couple in any way.

The disclosure of the couple’s CPF and MediSave balances were necessary to dispel falsehoods in a public statement by Mr Leong Mun Wai about Government assistance to the needy. In particular, Mr Leong falsely claimed the woman’s MediSave account was depleted and that she could, therefore, not afford to continue paying for her hospital physiotherapy sessions. Mr Leong also referred to their low quantum of monthly support they receive, without taking into account that they were eligible to withdraw from their CPF Account.

It is unfortunate that there is a habit of rushing to publicise cases of persons in need. Instead, I would advise members of the public and Members of the Chamber to let social services know of such cases. I hope that we can agree that it is more important to first be assured that such individuals are, indeed, receiving the help they need, rather than to use them to prove or substantiate one’s policy or political arguments.

When cases are publicised with errors of fact, they create the misleading impression that we as a society are failing those of us who are in need. Government agencies then have to set the record straight, in the public interest, and this is consistent with the Government's Instruction Manual and the Public Sector (Governance) Act on data governance standards, which provide that, among other reasons, personal data can be disclosed, if necessary, in the public interest.

Mr Giam.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his reply. Just one supplementary question. Does the Senior Parliamentary Secretary agree that this response from the Government, in this case, will instil some fear in residents against sharing their worries with people who are genuinely trying to assist them and seeking to assist them?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his supplementary question. I think, in the whole process, we have been very mindful to make sure that the anonymity of the couple is assured. In the Ministry of Social and Family Development's (MSF's) statement that was issued on 15 February as well as on the factual clarifications that were made on Factually.gov.sg, I think we had done our utmost to be assured of that. I think the whole exercise was to put out the facts and that is what it was all about.

Mr Melvin Yong.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his reply and his assurances. Mr Gerald Giam asked a question on the disclosure of private data. On the same note, I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether MSF knows how Mr Leong Mun Wai came to know about the couple and their personal difficulties? I am just wondering whether there is any information leak from any agencies that had been dealing with the couple? Perhaps the Senior Parliamentary Secretary could clarify that.

Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Melvin Yong for his supplementary question. The short answer is there was no breach.

But this is what we know of Mr Leong Mun Wai's involvement. Following the post by Mr Leong on 12 February, our volunteers spoke with the couple to find out what had happened because we know the couple and we had been helping them consistently, and that what Mr Leong had put out contained falsehoods. The couple told our volunteers that they were surprised to find Mr Leong at the door on 12 February because they had neither approached the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) nor Mr Leong about their situation.

Instead, they said that they had actually written to Mr Pritam Singh four years ago in 2020. Then, there was no response from the Workers' Party (WP) or Mr Pritam Singh. Meanwhile, during these years, MSF and other Government agencies had been helping the couple and the extent of the help provided was set out in the MSF statement issued on 15 February.

The couple said that on 11 February, four years after they had written to Mr Singh, they received a call from him. Mr Singh spoke about the couple getting in touch with him four years ago and he told the couple that someone would visit them. Then, one day later, on 12 February, Mr Leong Mun Wai went to visit the couple.

The couple told us that they were told that Mr Singh had informed Mr Leong regarding the email that Mr Singh had received four years ago. As to why Mr Singh did not do anything for four years and why he then chose to speak with Mr Leong, and whether Mr Singh knew or agreed with Mr Leong that this matter will be highlighted on social media, just four days before the Budget Statement was due to be delivered on 16 February, that is not clear to us.

I do not know what Mr Singh was trying to do and I make no specific comment on his motivations. But I am sure he and everyone in this Chamber here will agree with me that people, especially the vulnerable ones that we serve, and their plights should not be politicised. Instead, there must be a sincere intent to help.

It is an old art in politics – highlight one case, hopefully get attention, colour perceptions, then make people think negative thoughts about the Government as a whole. Interesting that this happened a few days, just before the delivery of the Budget Statement on 16 February, perhaps to try to make people think that the Government does not help those who need help. But whether that is anyone's motivation, I do not know and I cannot make a statement on that.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Speaker, I think since I have been referred to, I ought to stand up and clarify matters.

Indeed, there was a letter sent by someone who had not left their address. I get various letters all the time. I picked up that letter as I was clearing up my files in my office. This resident had made certain statements. I do not wish to reveal them here because I have not cleared these matters with that resident. I was just checking in on them to say, "Look, are things better now?" That resident gave some feedback about still being in difficulty. I asked for the address, since the address was not on the letter. I realised that it was in an area where Mr Leong and his party are active. So, I said, "Look, have you seen your Social Service Office (SSO) or at least gone to the SSO?" The couple said, "No, we cannot, because I am blind." And the gentleman said that his wife was immobile. For that reason, I got in touch with Mr Leong. I said, "Look, if your team is visiting, you may want to find out and follow up."

For the record, maybe the Senior Parliamentary Secretary knows this, I receive similar feedback from my own residents about trouble that some other people may be facing in a different constituency. He would have had knowledge of an email that I sent to the SSO — I beg your pardon, centrally to MSF, telling them, "Look, I have got this information. Can you please follow up with this resident who does not stay in any constituency which the WP are involved in?"

So, I hope the MSF acknowledges that in this House, that this is how the WP operates as well. By the way, I did not know how Mr Leong Mun Wai followed up after that. But certainly, when we know of residents who are in trouble, who are in need, who are in difficulty, it is not in the WP's interest to go online and to point figures at Government agencies or point fingers at organisations like SSOs for no rhyme or reason.

Mr Singh, we are approaching the end of Question Time and I want to allow the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to give a very short reply.

Yes, Sir. And so, the idea must always be: how do we follow up with this individual? So, I hope that clarifies to MSF that when we know of residents who are in need in any constituency, we will try and get assistance rendered to them, be it through people who we know are active on the ground or through the MSF and SSO on their own.

Senior Parliamentary Secretary Chua, if you can give a short reply, please.

Sir, a quick reply to Mr Singh. I thank him for his answers. I think we set out to seek the facts. The questions we asked were: whether Mr Singh did alert Mr Leong to the couple's situation; and second, why Mr Singh waited for four years to do so?

No disagreement with the process that has been in place all this while and we are definitely not saying that the WP and Mr Singh are going out there on social media platforms to point fingers at the Government. But I think the original first two questions were not answered.

I just want to round back to a point that I made earlier, about not using the vulnerable ones in our community as Trojan horses, as pawns or as chess pieces, because every time I go on night walks, every time I visit the families in the rental flats, the specifics of their situations already pain me. And for us to add further stress to their situation by subjecting them to such situations, it is neither good faith nor does it do any good for their actual situations.

Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Order of the Day.

[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.]

[(proc text) Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [4th Allotted Day]. (proc text)]

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

[(proc text) Head K (cont) – (proc text)]

[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [1 March 2024], (proc text)]

[(proc text) "That the total sum to be allocated for Head K of the Estimates be reduced by $100." – [Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan]. (proc text)]

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

Dr Wan Rizal.

Chairman, lifelong learning and SkillsFuture Level-Up seems to be the buzzword. Many Members of Parliament (MPs), including myself, have spoken about it. I highlighted that amid all this excitement, there are potential stresses and anxieties surrounding career transitions or just returning back to school after so many years. Therefore, some clarity is needed as well as increased support in their endeavours.

Could the Ministry clarify how the programmes or courses are chosen, whether companies are ready to take in these graduates and whether there are enough vacancies in the job market for them to transit to or join as graduates in a new field? Additionally, would the Ministry consider introducing more tailored financial support schemes to reduce the financial and emotional burden on individuals pursuing their studies?

Next, would the Ministry consider developing flexible and innovative learning pathways for a more inclusive approach for education as well as training? By offering part-time and innovative modular courses, we can cater to a mature learner's diverse needs and schedules, some of whom are parents and caregivers. This can reduce the pressure of a full-time commitment and facilitate a smoother integration of learning into their daily lives.

Lastly, would the Ministry consider establishing a comprehensive support system encompassing career guidance, like what we see for our secondary school students, mental health resources and networking opportunities that would aid in the professional development of our mature workforce and support their mental and emotional well-being throughout this journey?

Assoc Prof Razwana Begum. You can take your two cuts together.

Sir, I declare my interest as an educator with the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS) and as an advocate for continuous education and lifelong learning. I welcome the initiatives announced by the Ministry last week and the Minister's remarks about education as a continuing journey.

Lifelong learning is a powerful tool for promoting social mobility, creating positive change within our communities and unlocking opportunities for everyone to thrive and contribute meaningfully to society. SkillsFuture is an initiative that facilitates and promotes both lifelong learning and Singapore's growth.

In view of this, my questions are: how will the Ministry assess the effectiveness of the SkillsFuture movement, including with respect to strengthening the social mobility of Singaporeans? What programmes are in place to encourage employers to approve leave for employees wanting to participate in the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme, ensure that those who graduate from such programmes are able to secure employment in the area of their study, and mentor those wanting to participate in such programme to ensure that they are making an informed career choice?

Lifelong learning within the education system goes beyond imparting knowledge. It is about equipping children with the skills, confidence and curiosity to become lifelong learners who are motivated to pursue their aspirations and reach their full potential. In view of this, my questions are: what programmes are in place to introduce the concept of lifelong learning into early childhood education and care settings, and what programmes are in place to encourage school-aged children to explore and adopt a philosophy of lifelong learning?

Lastly, parents play a fundamental role in nurturing lifelong learning in their children. Providing the foundation, support and encouragement needed for them to become curious, motivated and self-directed learners throughout their lives. In view of this, my questions are: what programmes are in place to assist parents to discuss the concept of lifelong learning with their children at home, and what programmes are in place to encourage parents to actively support their children to pursue life choices, including academic and vocational choices, based on personal interest or aptitude rather than social or cultural expectations or norms?

Chairman, Forward Singapore's Equip pillar sets out how education and learning can equip Singaporeans with the knowledge and skills to seize new opportunities and maximise their potential. Minister Chan Chun Sing shared last week more details on the subsidies for Singaporeans aged 40 and above to pursue another full-time diploma at the local polytechnic.

It is not easy for someone well-past the conventional graduation age of early 20s to go back to full-time studies. Mature students are likely to have financial commitments to support their families. They could already be parents and may also have to take care of their own elderly parents' financial commitments. The newly announced monthly training allowance of up to $3,000 for up to 24 months will be useful to mitigate the loss of income during their training period.

Given that the allowance may still not be enough for some mature students with significant financial commitments, I would like to ask the Ministry if these students could still take on part-time work during their training to supplement their income? Would this act against them in their eligibility for the training allowance?

As the term lifelong learning goes, learning does not stop in the early 20s after graduation nor does it restart at 40 years old. Are there support provisions for Singaporeans aged under 40 years old? How about Singaporeans who want to go further than a second full-time diploma? What support could be made available for those whose career paths and aspirations would benefit more from a second degree programme?

Chairman, the Government's commitment to lifelong learning, SkillsFuture and SkillsFuture Level-Up is crucial for propelling Singaporeans up the value chain, garnering support from employers. However, the business sector would like to suggest more specialised, sector-specific training for SkillsFuture to meet industry's needs. This is particularly evident in the manufacturing sector where there is a significant demand for courses in areas, like artificial intelligence (AI) in manufacturing and sustainability reporting.

Such specialised training is deemed essential for building a talent pool with the advanced skills necessary to achieve the Manufacturing 2030 vision. In light of these industry demands, could the Ministry share any plans to enhance the SkillsFuture programme with more in-depth, sector-specific training opportunities?

As the job landscape evolves rapidly, recognising workplaces as extensions of our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) could enable a more practice-based and application-oriented approach to human capital development. Trade associations and chambers (TACs) may have a part to play in overseeing and accrediting workplace training, and this adjustment could ensure that the workforce remains agile and employable in the face of changing industrial requirements. As such, will the Ministry of Education (MOE) consider expanding SkillsFuture support to include various forms of workplace training?

Chairman, for myself and many in this Chamber, one of the most striking announcements in Budget 2024 is the significant investment the Government is making to support lifelong learning, upskilling and reskilling. The SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme, which includes the SkillsFuture Credit, giving mid-career Singaporeans a second shot at a subsidy for publicly funded full-time diplomas and the training allowances, have been welcomed by almost all quarters.

At the same time, these are significant investments and it will be important to demonstrate the impact and value of these investments over time.

Indeed, beyond the direct investments in the course fee subsidies and training allowances, significant effort will need to be made to curate the right courses, raise awareness, help people overcome the mental, physical and financial hurdles to take ownership of their learning, match them to the right courses and use the newly-acquired knowledge and skills to land a job or move up in their current roles with better salaries and prospects.

We also need to make sure that people are resilient and adopt a never-give-up attitude, both in learning and in looking for jobs. The Government will need to track the right metrics, which are not so much the percentage shake-up but the outcome metrics, such as placement into roles that use the skills acquired. How will the Government ensure that this significant investment will achieve the desired results, in particular, of helping Singaporeans grow in their careers and take on new careers?

Chairman, I declare my interest as the Chief Executive Officer of the Wealth Management Institute, a training provider serving the finance sector with programmes eligible for SkillsFuture Credit. Sir, I agree that our current publicly funded IHLs can contribute to lifelong learning in addition to their core mandate of pre-experienced education.

But I urge the Government to nurture a new generation of industry-linked training providers, specially designed to serve the unique learning needs of working adults. This is particularly important to ensure that we have SkillsFuture programmes designed specially to target skills upgrading and acquisition, rather than to achieve academic qualifications.

By drawing lessons from similar setups in Sweden and Switzerland, these specialised training providers ought to be established with the following criteria. First, there must be assurance that training delivered is highly applied and practice-based, with clear reference to industry skills-maps. This approach ensures that the learners acquire practical skills and hands-on experience, making them job-ready upon completion of their courses.

Second, it is essential for instructors and trainings to have strong industry experience. Educators with an industry background bring a wealth of knowledge, real-world insights and practical skills to the classroom. The teaching pedagogy for adult learners must be contextualised within the industry landscape, leveraging real-world case studies and use cases.

Third, the credentials awarded upon training completion must translate into industry-recognised and valued qualifications, rather than merely reflecting academic grades. The learners should receive credentials that will demonstrate their ability to apply learned skills in real-world settings recognised and importantly, endorsed by employers.

Fourth, the active participation of employers in the training design ensures direct relevance to industry requirements and that training is rooted in real-world applications than in theory. They should be involved in the identification and prioritising of training programmes that will address the most sought-after skills and competencies in the job market.

The endorsement and commitment of employers to adopt these training programmes must be an integral part of the design and funding process of SkillsFuture. In countries like Sweden and Switzerland, industry-specialised schools are often led and governed by industry leaders, exemplifying this approach.

Sir, we can actually see some of the elements I mentioned above already being practised selectively. So, to establish an ecosystem of training providers that will yield high employment outcomes, it is necessary to pivot SkillsFuture to support industry-linked training providers.

These industry-linked training providers must be deeply integrated with the sectors they serve. Forming partnerships with the industry and employers is crucial to ensure their curricula are directly informed by current and future skills needs. The course offerings should undergo regular review cycles to remain responsive to evolving industry trends and skills demands.

Additionally, the assessment of learning outcomes must align with industry relevance rather than concentrating on academic rigour, the assessment should prioritise skills acquisition and the performance of relevant skills and tasks in real world settings. Furthermore, it is imperative that industry leaders have a strong representation on the board of directors of these schools to ensure strong alignment of the schools' resources and outcomes to industry needs.

In the development of this new ecosystem, the Government can assume a pivotal role by introducing a SkillsFuture quality accreditation framework. This framework could implement a differentiated funding model, based on several key factors: the curriculum's relevance to practice, the involvement of qualified industry trainers and instructors, industry and employer involvement and endorsement as well as employment outcomes.

Industry-linked training providers that have a proven track record of delivering strong outcomes should, over time, receive support and recognition comparable to that accorded to publicly funded IHLs. Implementing such a measure would foster the evolution of a new generation of highly specialised schools, each with deep domain expertise in their respective industries.

Sir, I am confident that the introduction of such a SkillsFuture framework will significantly boost both employers' and trainees' motivation for training. Knowing that their time invested in training has a real impact on boosting business performance and career growth will be a key driver for participation and commitment.

Chairman, freelancers I spoke with welcomed the new SkillsFuture Level-Up programme. They include platform workers who appreciate the Government's consideration of their challenges faced when exploring career transition.

Some, such as Miss R, a freelance delivery courier and an Institute of Technical Education (ITE) graduate, asked if the Government could consider extending the SkillsFuture Level-Up programme and/or the ITE Progression Award to her and her peers in their 30s. She turned to food delivery after she was displaced some years ago. Then, she had found it challenging to upgrade her qualification as she had breadwinner responsibilities. Now, as she contemplates her career options against the backdrop of economic uncertainty and an appreciation of CPF utility for ageing, health and housing needs, she hopes that the sandwiched group of ITE graduates, like her, can also be considered for the ITE Progression Award and/or the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme. In this regard, I would like to put forth three possibilities for the Minister's consideration.

First, could the Ministry extend, or as a baseline, contextualise the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme and the ITE Progression Award to Singaporeans in their 30s who need a boost to their career health and, in the same vein, extend the SkillsFuture Credit to Singaporean workers below age 25?

Second, might the Ministry and SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) work closely with the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and its freelancer-centred associations to include, under the SkillsFuture Level-Up programme, training options and accreditations that are helpful to progressing the work prospects of those who are dictated by business models in the arts, creative, media and coaching sectors to freelance as a career?

Third, might the Ministry and SSG work closely with NTUC and its freelancer-centred associations as well as relevant sector agencies to establish fair and balanced guidance that communicate the surveyed costs for freelancers, such as coaches and creatives, to deliver quality service of professional standards?

These professional standards could be benchmarked against occupation-specific competency frameworks that were outlined in the Ministry of Manpower's (MOM's) 2018 Tripartite Workgroup report on support for self-employed persons. The guidance would also recognise the differentiated premiums for expertise mastery that freelancers, like coaches and creatives, accumulate through upskilling efforts.

By contextualising initiatives, we can take concrete steps together to boost freelancers' career prospects and their value-add to the Singapore economy.

Mr Chairman, the newly announced SkillsFuture Level-up $4,000 grant will be applicable to courses with "better employability outcomes." Would the Ministry be able to clarify how exactly the grant will benefit freelancers and self-employed persons (SEPs), a large proportion of whom work in the arts?

Skills relevant to the latter group might not be directly related to "employability". For example, freelancers and SEPs may benefit more from training in targeted areas, such as the negotiation of contract terms, business and accounting management and product marketing. Undoubtedly, these skills may be valued by prospective employers as well, but I would like to seek clarification from the Ministry on how SkillsFuture Level-Up courses will take the specific learning needs of freelancers into account.

My second point has to do with the training allowance that has been announced in the Budget Statement, capped at $3,000, and which is based on a person's average income earned in the previous year. The Minister has stated that the long-term unemployed and caregivers who have left the workforce will not be entitled to the allowance, as it is meant to provide support for workers and, specifically, those who experience income loss when they commit to full-time training.

The benefit, therefore, for now, excludes people, such as caregivers who have had to take time off from paid work in order to look after children or the elderly, and it appears to gloss over the fact that caregiving is also a kind of work. It is just unpaid and outside the formal confines of an employer-employee relationship. If the Government wishes for seniors to be able to age in place and for more women to bear children, there must be recognition of the fact that time-consuming and all-encompassing caregiving duties will necessarily be borne by Singaporeans and, most typically, by women.

I would like to suggest that the Government should acknowledge the key role that caregivers play in our community as well as the opportunity costs faced by them when they give up work. I hope that the Government can consider an eventual extension of the training allowance to caregivers if they wish to upskill themselves with a view to re-entering the workforce when their caregiving duties have ceased or when they become less onerous.

Mr Chairman, I would like to thank MOE for the SkillsFuture Level-Up scheme and enquire about the Mid-Career Training Allowance, specifically, what arrangements or provisions will be made regarding training allowance for Singaporeans who have been unemployed for more than a year.

There are significant numbers of Singaporeans who lost their jobs during the COVID-19 years of 2019 to 2022. They have been struggling to make ends meet through ad hoc or freelance contracts sporadically over the past three years. Their annual income is a far cry from their last-employed full-time income. Will MOE consider basing the training allowance on the last-drawn full-time income instead of the previous year's income?

Mr Chairman, I applaud the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme, which provides $4,000 top-up for Singaporeans aged 40 and above, subsidies to the second publicly funded diploma or publicly subsidised diploma, and the ITE Progression Award. On the SkillsFuture Top-Up with targeted scope, I have spoken regularly on this over the past few years, and I am glad to see that the top-up is confined to selected training programmes, which are industry-oriented, with better employability outcomes.

Given that there are over 29,000 courses on the SkillsFuture website, how will the Ministry decide which training programmes will be eligible for this top-up funding? What will be the criteria? How will SSG work with the industry to identify courses which are industry-oriented with better employability outcomes?

There are often multiple training vendors for one type of training. How do we prevent over-inflated training fees to prevent excessive claims by training vendors? And instead of tying it for better employment outcomes, can we also have some of it tied to the productivity or improvement outcome it brings to the company?

Chairman, in my Budget speech, I highlighted the issue faced by persons with disabilities (PwDs) when encountering training providers who are either unwilling or not equipped to provide necessary accommodations. This often results in PwDs being turned away or not receiving the support required to fully engage in further education and training opportunities.

These accommodations could range from providing screen reader-friendly course materials and websites for those with visual impairments, to adjusting assessment methods to cater to an individual's disabilities. Unfortunately, as the provision of reasonable accommodation is not yet a legal requirement in Singapore, PwDs have limited avenues for recourse in such situations.

As Singapore continues to equip its workforce with the skills needed for an evolving economy, it is crucial that PwDs have equal access to skills upgrading opportunities to remain competitive.

In light of this, what are the ways the Government can collaborate with continuing education and training (CET) centres to ensure that SkillsFuture courses eligible for the newly introduced SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme are accessible to PwDs, particularly those with visual impairments or neuro-diverse needs? This is to ensure that PwDs are not left behind in the upskilling process and that they have the necessary support to thrive in a competitive job market.

Chairman, I commend MOE's efforts for its dedication to lifelong learning in Budget 2024, focusing on younger ITE graduates and mid-career Singaporeans. I seek MOE's response to what I raised in my Budget speech on the challenges these groups face, such as opportunity costs or income loss, and also ensuring positive job outcomes from further education.

I am also concerned about those who are outside these groups, such as the non-ITE graduates and non-mid-career Singaporeans who are in low-skilled jobs, including some gig jobs. How will MOE urge them to take up training and opportunities in emerging sectors, like the digital, care and green economies?

Many Singaporeans aspire for further education beyond diplomas, including Master's degrees, for example, in fields like sustainability. They want to take a second bite of the cherry of tertiary level studies. Given these high costs though, how will MOE support these ambitions?

In addition, I seek MOE's inputs on whether the investment in certifiable diplomas means a move away from MOE's vision of a more eclectic mix of pathways to lifelong learning. What about promoting more bite-sized, modular and skills-based certificates of competency, instead of going only for diplomas and, possibly later, degrees and other ambitions?

Next, I would like to continue to speak up for the lifelong learning needs of PwDs. The SkillsFuture course landscape offers a vibrant array of over 20,000 courses for adult learners, now further enriched by the SkillsFuture Level-Up initiatives and so forth. However, this vibrant and optimistic lifelong learning scenario does not extend to school graduates and adults with special educational needs (SEN). This is regardless of whether they graduate from SPED schools or mainstream schools. To ignore the "cliff effect" of learners with disabilities or SEN would be to create a larger pool of Singaporeans relying on state welfare and who might be leading sub-optimal lives at adulthood.

So, Sir, while MOE, SG Enable and their learning partners have made commendable efforts to support recent school graduates, these initiatives are insufficient to ensure lifelong learning for all. Current learning efforts often appear fragmented and constrained by the scope and budgets of each Ministry, making it challenging to discern a unified vision or ecosystem where these efforts synergise.

As a leader in education and with the Minister championing lifelong learning for all Singaporeans, MOE is positioned to spearhead this domain. There is a pressing need for MOE to commission a comprehensive study to map the current landscape for lifelong learning for all, analyse disability profiles and assess learning needs. This would pave the way for a more robust vision and the development of a more strategic, cohesive Lifelong Learning Plan for All.

Innovative, cost-effective learning solutions should be explored, for instance, rather than merely reducing fees for SPED schools, which are, of course, welcomed, could we also direct or add some grants to support learning into adulthood in MOE schools and beyond?

In summary, I urge MOE to refine its strategy for lifelong learning to include all Singaporeans, ensuring no one is left behind. I urge MOE to take its place and lead in developing a more inclusive and comprehensive learning ecosystem for all Singaporeans, regardless of ability and background.

Chairman, in an economy that is increasingly valuing diverse skills and lifelong learning, the move to encourage our ITE graduates, especially those aged 30 and below, to pursue further education and skills enhancement is very timely.

This brings us to an important question: what is the range of diploma programmes that this initiative covers? What flexibility is allowed for students to discover courses other than the ones they initially took? I have known of students who change their interest halfway through and they would like to try something else.

What support systems, both academic and focused on mental well-being, would we provide prospective diploma students, especially those who have not been engaged in formal study for a long time?

Additionally, would the Ministry expand financial support mechanisms, such as scholarships and grants, to ensure these programmes are accessible to all ITE graduates who wish to further their education? This support would alleviate the financial and emotional burden on students and their families, making it easier for graduates to commit to further education.

Finally, I would like to ask the Ministry, how aligned are the chosen diploma programmes with the current and future job market demands and whether the programmes are designed in partnership with industry leaders. I have known such collaborations would actually encourage not just the students but the IHLs to work closely with the companies and hence, it is a win-win situation for all parties.

By doing so, we ensure that the skills, knowledge and mental resilience acquired by the graduates are relevant and highly sought after by employers, and this enhances their employability and, of course, their career progression opportunities.

Chairman, over the years, ITE has evolved significantly to meet the changing needs of Singapore's economy and workforce. Initially focused on providing basic vocational skills training, ITE has expanded its curriculum to offer a wide range of courses catering to various industries, such as engineering, design, business, hospitality and healthcare. This evolution reflects Singapore's shift towards a knowledge-based economy and the growing demand for skilled workers in the diverse sectors.

One key aspect of ITE's evolution is its emphasis on providing students with not just technical skills, but also soft skills and employability skills. ITE, indeed, places a strong emphasis on holistic education, ensuring that graduates are equipped with communication skills, problem-solving abilities, teamwork capabilities and a strong work ethic. During my time in polytechnic, I had a chance to work with many such ITE graduates who went on to polytechnic, and I can certainly testify to the quality of these students.

While ITE provides guidance and support to help graduates navigate future pathways and also informed decisions about their career aspirations, it is heartening to hear the Deputy Prime Minister mention the ITE Progress Award in his Budget speech. I also noted that Minister Chan Chun Sing had also talked about the ITE Progress Award in his Committee of Supply (COS) speech as well.

I would like to ask if the Government could also consider, for the ITE Progression Award, to not just be applicable for enrolment and study in full-time diploma programmes or diploma programmes from the Government polytechnics, but also be considered for diploma programmes in other institutions and even for professionally-certified courses, provided these courses are conducted by reputable private education institutes (PEIs)?

Mr Chairman, how will the Ministry intend to introduce the ITE Progression Award? What are the types of diplomas that will be applicable for this award that is in line with the needs of the industry? Will it be applicable for diplomas from independent schools?

Sir, I speak to many ITE students when they receive their Edusave awards. For many of them, they aspire towards graduation with a Higher Nitec certificate and then pursuing a diploma from the polytechnic. However, not all of them will be able to get into a polytechnic and, for some, they may not be able to be admitted into a course of their interest in polytechnic. For some students, they are asked to consider a course in engineering when they are already struggling with Mathematics. So, it is a mismatch of the student's interest. As a result, their only option is to go for the ITE Work-Study diploma.

Sir, I am concerned as to whether an 18-year-old student freshly graduated from ITE would be able to cope with study and work at the same time. Some of our ITE students are late bloomers. They need more encouragement to help them find a suitable field to excel in and they should not be compelled to start work and concurrently study when they are ill-prepared.

May I ask the Minister, for the past three years, how many ITE graduates have completed and graduated with the Work‐Study Diploma (WSDip)? And of those who have graduated with the WSDip, how many went on to university? Is the WSDip widely accepted by employers within their specific industry? How many companies are participating in the work-study programme? How are these employers equipped to deal with ITE students who are first-timers in the workforce and still have to take classes and study for their diploma at the same time?

Can the polytechnics consider expanding their classes to specially curate courses for ITE graduates which are more technical-based, rather than academic-based? Here, I am talking about having separate polytechnic classes, vis-à-vis the usual polytechnic diplomas that are issued. So, there should be one specifically for ITE students. We should give the students every opportunity to pursue their dreams and the opportunity to graduate with a recognised polytechnic diploma.

Chairman, there is abundant research to show that the early years are critical to a child's development. Quality early childhood education is very important. I am glad, therefore, that the Government had embarked on MOE Kindergartens and created an opportunity to develop a body of knowledge on the best pedagogies and practices for early childhood education. As early childhood education has a significant impact on a child's trajectory, it becomes necessary to intervene early, especially if a child from a family in challenging circumstances is not given the full experience of quality education.

Children from low-income families should not be denied an opportunity of education and programmes that could make a difference to their development and future success in life. Early childhood education and development are a key aspect of the strategy in sustaining social mobility. The MOE Kindergarten is, therefore, also an important avenue to provide support for families in the lower-income group. I am, therefore, interested to learn about the plans that MOE Kindergarten has in the future to provide more services or support for low-income families. It is heartening to note that there are meaningful services like Kindergarten Care (KCare) where parents who need full-day services can enrol their children in. I understand there are subsidies for KCare. Would there be plans to enhance the support given to the families in need through further subsidies or programmes?

Mr Shawn Huang. Not here. Ms Denise Phua.

Sir, decades of research underscore the significant impact of parental involvement in education, yielding benefits for both students and schools. Evidence also suggests that students of engaged parents are more likely to do better, exhibit better social skills and adapt well to school. Studies found a positive correlation between family involvement and student success, regardless of the family's socioeconomic status.

I commend MOE and neighbourhood schools for fostering Parent Support Groups (PSGs). An overview of their achievements reveals that PSGs in Singapore have shown remarkable progress, enhancing the educational environment through various initiatives.

My study of the landscape also shows that the level of PSG participation and contribution varies across schools. Additionally, I notice that many parents are still seized with worries over the high-stakes examinations, such as PSLE and GCEs, and direct school admissions as to what they perceived as better schools and also pressing issues, such as their children's mental health.

Parents, I believe, can be play a more significant and impactful role. MOE has the opportunity to devise a strategic plan for deeper collaboration with parents, fostering a culture that values learning beyond grades, growth beyond grades, supports good mental health and emphasises character development, all important mantras recited by the Minister for Education himself. MOE can draw inspiration from the organisational structures of multi-level networks in the business sector and also the cell group frameworks and resource support found in faith-based communities. This may help to enhance the cascading of critical information and resources more effectively.

I request an update from MOE on the progress of PSGs over the years, the role of the Community and Parents in Support of Schools (COMPASS) advisory panel and strategies for harnessing parents' energy to strengthen our education system as a whole.

Sir, as we stand united in our commitment to the holistic development of our students, we must recognise the indispensable role of parental engagement and the vital support provided by PSGs. The nurturing environment that parents and PSGs create is foundational to our children's success, both academically and in their personal growth. With mental well-being emerging as a paramount concern in today's fast-paced and often stressful world, the collaboration between schools and parents has never been more critical.

Against this backdrop, a pivotal question arises: what initiatives are MOE implementing to enhance parental involvement and collaboration in supporting our students' holistic development, for example, in areas like mental well-being?

Building on this and recognising the potential for even greater impact, I propose two further suggestions for consideration.

Would the Ministry consider establishing a co-curated dedicated platform or portal centralising resources, research and expert advice on children's mental health? This could serve as a comprehensive resource for parents by PSGs, facilitating easier access to information and best practices supporting mental well-being.

Could the Ministry explore partnerships between PSGs and mental health professionals, to conduct regular webinars and workshops for parents and educators? Such initiatives could provide a deeper understanding of how to recognise early signs of mental distress, foster open communication, create supportive environments and, finally, promote resilience in children.

Second Minister Mohamad Maliki Osman.

Mr Chairman, our vision for an inclusive tomorrow starts with empowering our children to fulfil their potential. We want to meet the unique needs of our diverse learners and provide multiple pathways to support their aspirations. By bringing out the best in every student, we support the collective success of all Singaporeans. Through the Forward Singapore exercise, we have voiced our common desire for an inclusive Singapore that provides opportunities and empowers those in need. MOE will continue improving access to quality education.

First, we want our children from the most vulnerable segment to have a strong start in their education journey. Studies show that attending quality preschool can boost confidence and social skills and lay a strong foundation for life. In our local context, we have also found that children who attend preschool from age three are less likely to require learning support in Primary 1.

We know that lower-income families face multifaceted challenges requiring whole-of-community support, especially in ensuring early access to preschool. Let me focus on shifts in the MOE Kindergartens (MKs). My colleagues from the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) will share about the wider preschool sector.

Today, all 55 MKs offer KCare for parents who require full-day care services for their children. To improve the accessibility of MKs, we raised the household income cap for priority admission from $3,500 to $4,500 last year, reaching out to more children. But preschool fees may still deter some lower-income families from enrolling their children in preschool.

Our Singapore Citizen children with working mothers are eligible for the KCare Additional Subsidy (AS). Ms Rahayu Mahzam will be pleased to know that MOE will extend the KCare AS to all families, that is, regardless of their mother's working status and earning up to $6,000 per month from the fourth quarter this year.

This means all families with a gross monthly household income of up to $6,000 will receive subsidies. Those with a gross monthly household income of $3,000 and below will pay as low as $3 a month for MK and KCare. We hope that this will further encourage preschool enrolment among our lower-income families.

Beyond that, we know that good attendance is also key. Thus, MOE is strengthening initiatives to facilitate regular attendance and provide learning support. This will help narrow the gap in learning and development outcomes of children from lower-income families vis-à-vis their peers.

These moves, alongside plans that my MSF colleagues will share, will give our children a strong start to their education journeys.

Second, we will continue supporting students who face difficulties in school due to challenges in their home settings through the Uplifting Pupils in Life and Inspiring Families Taskforce (UPLIFT), which was established in 2018. We have made good progress. In 2023, UPLIFT supported about 16,500 students in around 300 schools.

UPLIFT provides holistic support through partnerships between schools and the community. The UPLIFT Enhanced School Resourcing, another programme under UPLIFT, equips schools to provide customised help. For example, student care centres in all primary schools engage students meaningfully after school, while the GEAR-UP programme offers students in around 120 secondary schools mentoring and interest-based activities. These programmes boost students’ socio-emotional competencies and their sense of belonging to school.

The community also plays a key role in UPLIFT. In 2020, we piloted the UPLIFT Community Network (UCN) to coordinate support at the town level and to connect families with resources in the community. Outcomes have also been positive. More than six in 10 students improved in attendance, and seven in 10 parents showed improved parenting habits and parent-child relationships. Encouraged by this success, we expanded the network to more than 100 schools across all 24 towns nationwide in 2023.

Last year, I spoke about strengthening whole-of-Government social service delivery alongside other agencies. To facilitate coordinated support, we have since started to integrate the UCN into the ComLink+, led by MSF. Our schools will continue to work closely with partners under ComLink+ to meet the students’ educational needs.

Third, we want to continue enabling students with special education needs (SEN) to fulfil their potential, by supporting them in appropriate educational settings that bring out their best.

Ms Denise Phua asked about our SEN students in our MOE mainstream schools. About 28,500 SEN students, or about 80% of all SEN students, attend mainstream schools today, and receive targeted help. This includes the TRANsition Support for InTegration (TRANSIT) for Primary 1 students with social and behavioural needs, which has been implemented in 139 schools, with the remaining 43 coming onboard by 2026. All primary schools also have at least two SEN officers, who are trained to provide learning and behavioural support.

Additionally, MOE connects with partners like SPARK, Unlocking ADHD and Dyslexia Association of Singapore. We value their role in also supporting students with SEN and their families.

Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked how we can help students with moderate to severe SEN, who face higher costs due to the customised and specialised care required. The Government has worked closely with the community to increase funding for special education (SPED) schools over the years and spends more on education per child in a SPED school compared to a mainstream school.

The income eligibility criterion for the SPED Financial Assistance Scheme was also increased last January. Between 2020 and 2023, we worked with social service agencies (SSAs) to reduce maximum fees for Singapore Citizens in SPED schools from $350 to $150.

We will do more. As outlined in the Budget Statement, we have worked with nine higher-fee SPED schools serving students with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Multiple Disabilities to lower their fees by up to 60% for Singapore Citizens by mid-2025. With this, the maximum monthly fees for any Singapore Citizen in SPED schools will be reduced from $150 to $90. More than 3,500 students and their families will benefit.

I would add that about 50% of all SPED students currently pay similar fees as students in the mainstream schools. Together with efforts by MSF, I assure Members that SPED students and their families will be supported in their educational and caregiving needs.

I thank Ms Rahayu Mahzam for the call to support our SPED teaching force. To enhance the attractiveness of the SPED teaching profession, we have reviewed SPED teachers’ and teacher aides’ (TAs') salary guidelines to be commensurate with their expected roles, their responsibilities and their competencies. Between 2024 and 2026, existing trained SPED classroom teachers can see salary enhancements of up to 12%. Salaries for SPED TAs can increase by up to 15% from 2024. From this year, we will also increase starting salaries for SPED classroom teachers by up to 15% and by up to 17% for TAs.

These salary enhancements will vary depending on individuals’ prevailing salaries, and their experience, competencies, job role and work performance. Funding will be provided to SSAs to implement them progressively.

To strengthen SPED teachers’ capabilities, we will introduce more professional development programmes to develop expertise in supporting different disability profiles. A School Staff Developer will also be appointed in each SPED school to enable professional growth in all SPED teachers. We appreciate our SPED teachers and remain committed to supporting them.

We agree with Mr Darryl David and Ms Denise Phua that preparing SPED students for post-school to community transition is very important. From age 13, SPED students are supported with transition planning, which facilitates progression to suitable post-school pathways. We will continue taking a whole-of-Government approach to this, with MSF taking the lead.

Beyond the Government’s efforts, students with SEN and their families need the community’s understanding and respect. I assure Mr Ong Hua Han that students from mainstream and SPED schools are given opportunities to develop appreciation of differently abled peers, through meaningful and sustained interactions. Such efforts will help students with SEN integrate into the community.

Parents have shared with me their difficulties in navigating their everyday life with their SEN children. Those with autism, for instance, who struggle to regulate emotions, may exhibit anti-social behaviours like screaming. Complaints from neighbours can lead to stressful visits from the relevant authorities. We do hope that the community is more supportive and understanding of their neighbours. Our vision is for an inclusive Singapore, where families with SEN children feel at ease in their community, supported by understanding friends and neighbours. So, I urge all Singaporeans to partner us in realising this vision.

Mr Chairman, beyond supporting those in need, we will develop diverse pathways to support students’ aspirations. With the implementation of Full Subject-based Banding (Full SBB) in all secondary schools this year, students will take more subjects at different levels, based on learning needs and abilities. We have done away with the previous streaming categories and expanded post-secondary pathways to recognise diverse learner profiles and offer greater flexibility.

Let me update on the review of admissions to polytechnic Year 1. With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute a handout showing the new pathways available from 2028.

Please proceed. [A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 1.]

Members may also access this through the MP@SGPARL App.

Under the Full SBB, students can take subjects at G1, G2 or G3 subject levels, broadly mapped from the Normal (Technical), Normal (Academic) and the Express standards respectively.

Let me use a student archetype, Jude, to demonstrate the flexibility of the Full SBB. Say, for example, in Secondary 3, Jude opts to pursue his passion in Design and Technology (D&T) as an elective, bringing him to six G3 subjects. After one year, he finds his curriculum load too challenging and he may decide to take D&T at a less demanding level at G2, which will enable him to pursue his passion still. At the end of Secondary 4, Jude will sit for five G3 and one G2 subject at the national examinations, the G2 being the D&T subject.

Today, for entry to polytechnic Year 1, Jude will not be able to use the G2 D&T grade as the current criteria is based on five G3 subjects, namely English Language; two Relevant (R) subjects, relevant to the course that he is applying for; and two Best (B) subjects. That is where the acronym ELR2B2 comes from.

From 2028, students may use one B subject at G2 for admission to polytechnic Year 1. Jude can thus use his G2 D&T grade if it improves his overall score. All students will be assessed on a common benchmark of four G3 subjects and one G2 subject. Students with more G3 subjects will have their grades converted to G2, to determine the best G2 subject for admission.

With this, the net aggregate cut-off for Year 1 polytechnic admission will be adjusted from 26 points to 22 points.

I want to assure the House that this is not a tightening of the admissions criteria but a result of converting one B subject from G3 to G2. For example, if Jude had an ELR2B2 of 26 points today, with a C6 in one of his B subjects, his C6 grade would be mapped to a G2 Grade 2. This gives him an aggregate of 22 points, which will allow him to access polytechnic. If Jude chooses to take the B subject at G2 and obtains Grade 1, his aggregate score will improve to 21 points.

This change will allow our students to focus on their strengths, enjoy their learning more and take subjects at appropriate levels, aligned to their interests and needs. I will allow Members to digest what I have just said.

Mr Chairman, let me highlight how we will uplift and support the continued learning of our ITE graduates. We all are very passionate about the ITE students. We want them to do well and we want them to do well, not just in their studies but also in life. They have built strong foundations in ITE but face a growing gap in their starting salaries compared to that of graduates from polytechnics and autonomous universities.

To provide more upskilling options for ITE graduates, ITE has expanded its Technical Diploma (TD) and the Work-Study Diploma (WSDip) offerings. Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked about employers' acceptance of WSDips. Last year, close to 400 companies partnered ITE to offer WSDips, which were taken up by 1,150 ITE graduates. These companies provide on-the-job training that complements the practice-based curriculum offered on campus. The WSDip model is well-received as it allows both fresh and working ITE graduates to be employed full-time and receiving their ITE qualification salaries, because they go in with their ITE qualification already, while gaining up-to-date skills that can be immediately applied at work.

The continued ramp-up of ITE's diploma programmes will allow ITE graduates to choose the pathway aligned to their aspirations and needs, in addition to diplomas offered by polytechnics and arts institutions. Employers, likewise, will be able to select diploma graduates who best fit their job profile and compensate them based on skills and experience.

Many ITE graduates I met want to deepen their skills. I am sure many of our colleagues in the House have met them, as Mr Lim Biow Chuan has mentioned, at the Edusave ceremonies. But they find it difficult to juggle studies and work and upskill only later in their careers.

Hairul, for example, deferred his upskilling aspirations after graduating in 2017, to support his family. Understandably, many of them do have family obligations and they want to support their families. For Hairul's case, with his company's sponsorship, he recently completed the WSDip in Electrical Engineering as a top graduate and obtained a promotion and a pay raise to $2,500, commensurate to his diploma qualification and skillset.

We will help ITE graduates like Hairul access a better wage trajectory by upskilling early. MOE will set aside around $100 million annually for the ITE Progression Award (IPA) and support Singaporean ITE graduates aged 30 and below on their upgrading journeys.

On diploma enrolment, ITE graduates will receive a $5,000 top-up to their Post-Secondary Education Accounts (PSEA). On diploma completion, they will receive a further $10,000 top-up to their CPF Ordinary Account (OA). These top-ups will help offset the costs of obtaining a diploma and boost their savings to support their longer-term goals.

I am pleased to inform Dr Wan Rizal, Mr Darryl David and Mr Sharael Taha that the IPA will be awarded from 2024 to eligible ITE graduates enrolling in diplomas issued by the polytechnics, ITE, Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts (NAFA) and LASALLE College of the Arts, which meet industry needs. Singaporean ITE graduates who are currently enrolled in diplomas will also receive the OA top-up on diploma completion.

The IPA is our investment in the longer-term prospects of our ITE graduates. With the IPA, more ITE graduates will deepen skills mastery and secure stronger progression prospects in their chosen careers.

Mr Chairman, our students should also play a role in creating a better future for Singapore. Indeed, the future is theirs to own. One important area where our youth can make an impact is in sustainability. This is in line with MOE's support of the Singapore Green Plan 2030 and our goal to nurture stewards of the environment.

Beyond learning about sustainability concepts in class, polytechnics and ITE will pilot a new sustainability initiative this year. Students from each institution will "adopt" three blocks near their campuses and engage residents through workshops and visits to reduce water consumption and electricity consumption and increase recycling and greening efforts. They will also drive change within their own households and communities to live a sustainable lifestyle. Students will work with relevant agencies to monitor key indicators of change in the households they engage.

In schools, students will continue to learn about sustainability issues under MOE's Eco Stewardship Programme. Since our focus on food sustainability last year, more than 80% of our schools have enacted related initiatives on food security. With these efforts, our students will be empowered as changemakers to make Singapore a sustainable home.

Mr Pritam Singh has asked about the instruction of Non-Tamil Indian Languages (NTILs). NTILs are taught through In-School Parallel Programmes (ISPPs) and Weekend Centres (WECs). Each request for new ISPPs is considered based on available resources and individual school needs. When not feasible, the WEC provides a more viable option. We also manage students' curriculum loads by ensuring that they do not take NTIL lessons in both ISPPs and WECs.

As NTIL teachers are employed by Community Groups (CGs), MOE does not set guidelines on their salaries. MOE last reviewed the funding for NTIL learning in 2022 and will continue supporting the CGs in providing quality instruction. Mr Chairman, allow me to continue in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] To achieve our vision of an inclusive Singapore, where we accept and value contributions from every Singaporean. Therefore, we must continue our efforts to fulfil the needs of diverse learners and develop multiple pathways that bring out the best in each child.

We understand the challenges that parents face. We will continue to enhance efforts so that children from lower-income families, students with complex needs and students with special education needs are given better educational opportunities. We will also work with social service agencies to raise salaries for SPED teachers and teacher aides, and strengthen their professional development. With these, more students will be able to learn and grow, regardless of their background or needs.

With most families using English dominantly in our homes, we recognise the importance of continuing efforts to deepen students’ interest in their mother tongue. The Mother Tongue Language Learning and Promotion Committees (MTLLPCs) spend around $5 million annually to promote Mother Tongue Languages learning and usage.

At the primary level, starting this year, we are introducing a refreshed Malay language curriculum that uses more games and technology in the learning of Mother Tongue. At the secondary level, the Malay Language Learning and Promotion Committee will introduce a new competition for secondary school students this year. This initiative builds on the success of the “Cepat Tepat” Quiz at the primary level, which is already in place. This new competition aims to encourage the use of the Malay language beyond the classroom and promote interest in Malay culture and literature. We will continue to make Malay language learning more engaging, both in and out of school.

At the polytechnics and ITE, we will introduce further shifts to support our students’ aspirations. In line with the Full Subject-Based Banding (SBB) in secondary schools, wider profiles of learners will gain access to polytechnic Year 1 from 2028. These changes will allow students to choose the subjects most suited to their own strengths and learning preferences.

We introduced the new ITE Progression Award (IPA) which aims to support our young ITE graduates to upskill to a diploma and secure more progression prospects. The award helps with the costs of obtaining a diploma and reduces expenditure for their longer-term goals. I urge more ITE graduates to press on with their upgrading efforts, so that they can deepen their skills and thrive in their chosen professions.

Apart from diploma courses in the polytechnics, they can also upskill through the ITE Work-Study programme or the Technical Diploma as well as LASALLE College of the Arts and NAFA diploma courses. We will continue our efforts to provide more learning pathways that can uplift our students’ capabilities to secure a better future for them.

(In English): Mr Chairman, it is our enduring mission to enable all to learn, progress and contribute. With our community's help, we will support our students in charting their paths to meaningful vocations and diverse callings, to fulfil our shared goal of an inclusive success.

Minister of State Gan Siow Huang.

Mr Chairman, lifelong learning is now a key pillar of our social compact.

Since the start of the SkillsFuture movement in 2015, we have built a strong lifelong learning ecosystem, comprising individuals, employers and training providers. We have expanded our partnerships to include NTUC, trade associations and chambers, professional bodies and SkillsFuture Queen Bee companies. We will continue to build on the foundation and expand our partnerships so that upskilling leads to better outcomes for both Singaporeans and businesses.

Let me elaborate on how individuals, employers and industry can each play a role.

First, on individuals. Last year, more than 500,000 individuals benefitted from training supported by SkillsFuture Singapore. That is one in five in our local workforce. This includes both individual-initiated training where SkillsFuture Credit was used, as well as company-initiated training programmes, both of which were supported by SSG with subsidised course fees. We are introducing the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme to further strengthen training support for Singaporeans.

Members have asked how we can ensure good take-up and outcomes from this Programme. To do that, we must cater to the diversity of individuals' needs and aspirations.

For a start, we have curated over 7,000 courses, covering a good range of sectors and job profiles. These courses are conducted by our IHLs and established private training providers, such as the NTUC Learning Hub and the Singapore Hotel Association Training and Education Centre (SHATEC). SSG will review the courses eligible for SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme over time, with input from sector agencies, industry intermediaries and professional bodies.

Last Friday, Minister Chan Chun Sing spoke about the SkillsFuture Career Transition Programme (SCTP). SCTP courses are geared towards individuals who wish to move into high growth areas, such as the digital, care and green economies. On top of training, SCTP courses include career advisory and employment facilitation, so that trainees have a better chance of getting employed after completing the course.

Take the example of Ms Low Danli, aged 41. She had been working in the ICT industry for 14 years when she sought a career change. Ms Low previously used her SkillsFuture Credit for some courses on corporate environment sustainability. After attending a SkillsFuture Roadshow, she took up an SCTP course in Sustainability at the SMU Academy. With 90% Mid-Career Enhanced Subsidy, the course fee payable by Ms Low was about $2,000. She used her remaining SkillsFuture Credit to offset a part of the course fees. Through the course, she learnt about climate issues, sustainable supply chains and green finance. She is now a Sustainability Client Engagement Specialist at the Singapore Environment Council.

The SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme seeks to enable more mid-career individuals like Ms Low to pursue a substantive bout of upskilling. If Ms Low decides to further deepen her skills in a few years’ time and enrol in a full-time course, for example, a diploma in sustainability, the $4,000 SkillsFuture Credit top-up will be sufficient to cover at least half her course fees and she will also get training allowance amounting to 50% of her last drawn salary, up to $3,000 per month.

If you are a Singaporean aged 40 and above, you will soon be notified by SSG of your eligibility for the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme. Given the wide range of courses available, you may need some help to make a decision. Do spend some time to chart your skills journey. There are various ways for you to seek advice: (i) you can refer to online resources, such as MySkillsFuture website and SSG's reports to understand skills that are in demand; (ii) you can also use the CareersFinder tool on the MyCareersFuture portal to discover career opportunities and skills gaps based on your personal profile and work history; and (iii) if you prefer to speak to someone, you can go to a Skills Ambassador for personalised course recommendations. Skills Ambassadors can be found at some community clubs, Workforce Singapore (WSG) Careers Connect Centres, job fairs and SkillsFuture roadshows across the island.

Career transition is not a one-step change. It can involve self-discovery, seeking out advice and more than one bout of skills training. As we shift SkillsFuture to a higher gear, we hope that every individual will take charge of their career health and invest in building their own career resilience.

Ms Jean See and Ms Usha Chandradas highlighted freelancers and self-employed persons as a group that deserves attention. Under the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme, there are a good number of courses in the areas highlighted by the Member, whether to deepen technical skills or broaden business skills, such as digital branding and business administration.

Miss Rachel Ong asked how we can ensure that the courses that qualify for the $4,000 top-up are accessible to PwDs. We have been working closely with SG Enable and training providers to make mainstream training programmes more accessible to PwDs. This is a work-in-progress. As there is a wide spectrum of learning needs for PwDs, we also encourage those interested in the courses to approach the training providers who can then work with the Enabling Academy to assess what assistive support and course modifications could be made to suit specific needs of the individual.

Let me touch on employers on how they can take greater ownership of upskilling their employees to meet their business needs.

We are encouraged that more employers are participating in training, especially the small and medium enterprises (SMEs). In 2023, around 23,000 companies participated in SSG-supported programmes. This is a 15% increase from 2022, driven by small companies with fewer than 50 employees. But from the Forward Singapore conversations, we have also heard feedback that opportunities for employer-sponsored training are uneven. Some workers hope that their employers can do more.

We want to support companies in making training more accessible.

First, we have developed tools that can help companies assess their skills stock, especially for SMEs that tend to have leaner human resources (HR) departments. Together with JobKred, SSG has developed a tool called the Skills Profiler. It allows employers to benchmark the skillsets of their employees against similar jobs in the industry. Companies will then receive customised course recommendations for any skills gaps. The Skills Profiler pilot was rolled out to 400 SMEs last year, with all slots snapped up within seven months. To support more SMEs in conducting training needs analyses, SSG will make the Skills Profiler available to 1,000 more enterprises this year. I encourage companies to come forward and try this out.

How might employers then take action? Mr Mark Lee suggested treating workplaces as extensions of our IHLs. I agree. Indeed, workplace learning as a modality provides an authentic learning environment for employees. It also helps employers better manage the challenges around releasing staff to attend external courses.

Last year, we piloted the Workplace Skills Recognition (WPSR) programme in selected Progressive Wage Model (PWM) sectors with the help of the National Centre of Excellence for Workplace Learning (NACE). NACE has started certifying companies that have established workplace learning systems and skills development plans for their staff. Once certified, the companies will be able to move quickly help their staff into training and to help them acquire WSQ certifications for the skills they have attained at the workplace.

I am happy to hear from NTUC Deputy Secretary-General Desmond Tan that feedback from its partners has been positive, and more employers in NTUC’s company training committee (CTC) network intend to sign up for the Workplace Skills Recognition (WPSR) Programme. We will expand the WPSR so that more employers and workers can benefit from it.

Employers who decide to send their staff for external training can also receive substantive support for training costs. In addition to SSG's subsidies, companies can tap on $10,000 of SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit (SFEC) to further defray their out-of-pocket costs. MTI has announced that the SFEC has been extended to June 2025. And beginning from Year of Assessment 2024, corporate tax deduction for training has been enhanced from 100% to 400% under the Enterprise Innovation Scheme. I encourage companies to make full use of these measures to upskill their employees to stay competitive.

Our jobs and skills ecosystem must come together to address job transformation and skills needs effectively.

We agree with Members on the need for industry involvement in the design and delivery of training. SSG, as the national skills authority, works closely with sector agencies and industry partners to understand industry demand and skills needs. These are translated into skills insights that are publicly available so that everyone can make use of the information. For example, training providers have developed SkillsFuture Series courses to provide skills top-ups in Industry 4.0 and the care, digital and green economies. In areas like AI, where we are making a national push to develop a pipeline of AI talent and AI practitioners, there are a variety of options ranging from bite-sized modular courses to Master’s programmes.

Industry players have stepped in to deliver training as well. BCG has trained close to 1,000 individuals in business-relevant digital skills through its Rise series of courses for companies and individuals. Meanwhile, our IHLs are ramping up industry attachments for their staff and tapping on industry practitioners to deliver CET.

Ms Foo Mee Har suggested introducing a SkillsFuture quality accreditation framework to differentiate funding for training programmes by quality and industry relevance and recognise high-quality training providers. SSG has, indeed, moved in this direction with its outcome-based funding model. By end-2024, all courses that deliver strong manpower outcomes in terms of securing employment and career progression will be accorded the highest tier of SSG subsidies.

To strengthen the reach and impact of SkillsFuture in more challenging sectors, we have introduced new partnership models in the past few years. Intermediaries, like the Jobs-Skills Integrators and Queen Bee companies, can help smaller companies leverage on their industry networks and strengths.

Let me now turn to our students.

To enhance our students' arts and cultural appreciation, MOE regularly reviews our curricular and co-curricular learning opportunities. An example is the Performing Arts-Based Learning (PABL), which was piloted in 2023 across 22 secondary schools to create authentic learning opportunities beyond the classroom for our lower secondary students. Through PABL, students experience live music performance that is specially produced and staged at a professional concert venue, as well as pre- and post-concert music lessons held in class. We received positive feedback from our students and will progressively roll out PABL to all secondary schools from 2024 to 2027.

Last but not least, parents; they are our key partners in supporting students' well-being and development.

Dr Wan Rizal, Ms Denise Phua and Assoc Prof Razwana Begum asked how MOE is partnering parents in supporting our students’ holistic development. MOE has developed resources for parents to guide their children on the various pathways available and in areas, such as children’s well-being, cyber wellness and broadening the definition of "success". If you have the Parents Gateway app on your mobile phone, you will find a treasure trove of parenting resources that can make you a more informed parent. MOE also works with the COMPASS Council. COMPASS members have led several projects that offer alternative platforms for parents to learn from professionals and other experienced parents.

In journeying with parents, our Parent Support Groups (PSGs) have been great partners and I am most thankful to our PSGs. Many volunteer and stay on the PSG even after their children have graduated from the school. Their passion is to help other parents and be peer supporters for the parent community. We recognise that each PSG has unique yet useful experiences that other PSGs can learn from. Therefore, to encourage sharing of learnings across PSGs, every PSG will be part of a Support Circle from 2024.

Support Circles are communities of PSGs across various schools where they can share resources and ideas. They can decide on the topics to collaborate on, such as supporting parents of children with special educational needs (SEN) and strengthening our students' mental well-being.

Mr Chairman, it takes a whole-of-society effort to equip Singaporeans with the skills they need to adapt and thrive. It is our duty to build on the foundation of lifelong learning that has been laid. Collectively, we can build a brighter shared future for Singaporeans and Singapore.

Minister Chan Chun Sing.

Chair, may I take this opportunity to say more about MOE's Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) lesson on the Israel-Hamas conflict, building on what I had said in my interview with the media last week.

This issue has stirred strong emotions amongst many. It is also reflected in the range of PQs filed by Members for upcoming Sittings. I thought I will say something here today to allow Members more time than the 30 minutes Question Time on Thursday.

The key questions raised were: why conduct such a lesson? Can MOE teach such a complex and emotive issue effectively? Could MOE have supported our teachers better? What are the learning points from this episode?

Chair, CCE is an established and integral part of the holistic education we provide to our students. We teach CCE in schools because we know how important yet how difficult it is to build our national identity amid the larger forces, including civilisational and religious forces that our multiracial, multi-religious society is subject to.

We know how global and social media news and fake news compete every moment to pull our people in different directions, challenging our efforts to maintain national cohesion and harmony. We do not have the luxury of time or a geographical buffer to insulate our people, including and especially our very young. We need to equip our people, starting with our young, with the skills and values to navigate this fast pace, often divisive and confusing world.

The latest escalation of the Israel-Hamas conflict is a stark reminder that external events can affect our people in different ways and even fracture our society if not well managed.

The young and old can get into heated conversations, insensitive and disrespectful remarks may be made, misinformation abound, especially online. Different parties appeal to our emotions to side with their cause, and information war is being fought all around us. We risk being drawn into other people's fights and conflicts. This is why the CCE lessons on contemporary issues often draw from events happening around us to help students better navigate the vagaries of the world. We can neither shelter our children from the world nor keep the world from intruding into their lives. In the case of the CCE lesson on the Israel-Hamas conflict, our aims are for students to (i) help them understand what is going on, express their own views and manage their own emotions; (ii) appreciate diverse perspectives sensitively and respectfully; (iii) discern information from different sources; and (iv) play their part to support racial harmony and social cohesion.

Let me emphasise what this CCE lesson is not about. It does not tell students that one party in this conflict is good and the other is evil. It does not impose any particular perspective or interpretation of events. It most certainly does not create a wedge between our students' religious beliefs and their national identity. It is also not meant to bring other people's politics into our schools. I hope all Singaporeans can agree with us on the intent and importance of CCE.

The question then is: what do we do in schools to achieve these shared objectives, especially when dealing with sensitive issues like this? What feedback have we obtained so far? For the teachers, by now, our teachers have had a few weeks of experience preparing and teaching the package. We have also heard some of their reflections. Some were initially unsure whether they had sufficient content mastery to teach the lesson. Some needed more time to process their own views and feelings about the conflict. And for those who were still uncomfortable and had asked to be excused from conducting the lesson, their school leaders supported their requests. By and large, most took on the challenge and carried out their duties professionally because they understood the importance of the task. We are grateful to them for stepping up despite any initial hesitations. To conduct CCE lessons well, our teachers will require facilitation skills, much more than just content mastery, and this is not an easy task.

For students, some schools which have conducted CCE lessons have also shared feedback from their students. A Primary 6 student said, "We should pray for all the innocent victims of the war and cherish the harmony and peace we have in Singapore." In one secondary school, some students asked their teachers for more information on why the war started in the first place and why the leaders on both sides could not come to a resolution. Many of them expressed sadness about the tragic situation.

A first-year junior college student said the CCE lesson was beneficial, as the information presented did not force him to agree on a certain stand on the matter but gave him the space to have his thoughts and considerations towards the issue. Some students also asked thoughtful questions like: "Is there a way out of this circle of violence and hatred?" and "What else can we do to help?" These student voices reflect the intent and learning objectives of the CCE lesson which I described earlier.

We have also received much feedback from parents and other stakeholders. Some thought the issue was too difficult for Primary 5 and 6 students to understand. Some questioned why some slides seemed to focus only on the more recent events in the long history of the conflict. Others wondered if the historical context of the conflict was properly emphasised in this CCE lesson. Yet others felt that we should give our students more information on Singapore's position on the Israel-Palestine issue. We take these concerns and feedback seriously.

Some suggested we drop the lesson altogether. But will this be better for our students and society in the long term? If we agree on the intent of CCE, then we must keep striving to improve our delivery. We are fully committed to equipping our teachers to help our children better navigate this complex world. As I shared with the media last week, we will update our materials to address the feedback and ongoing developments. We will also improve our teaching methods based on the experiences gained. Let me elaborate.

First, we will customise the lesson material further for students of different age groups. At this point, let me emphasise that this CCE lesson was not meant to teach the Israel-Palestine history or Middle East politics. It is impossible to do so in an hour-long session, and it was never our intention in the first place. For younger students, we will simplify our material even more. Our focus will continue to be on sensitising our younger ones to the plight of the innocent victims, how they can express sympathy for and empathise with others, and how they can manage their emotions regarding the conflict. For the older students, we will also teach them to be more discerning of different sources of information. For the most mature students, we will update the lesson material based on more recent events and help them better understand Singapore's national interests. Minister Vivian Balakrishnan had set out at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' (MFA) COS last week some of these recent developments and how Singapore is responding.

To reiterate, after the 7 October attack, we said Singapore recognised Israel's right to self-defence. But Israel's military response has gone too far. The catastrophic situation in Gaza demands a humanitarian ceasefire to alleviate the suffering of the civilian victims and to enable humanitarian assistance to reach them immediately. We will also explain to our students Singapore's principled position on the Israel-Palestine issue over the decades – and this is for the older students – such as how Singapore had voted in favour of calling for an immediate ceasefire at international platforms, how we have contributed to capacity-building efforts to the Palestinian authority and how we will continue doing our part to advance international efforts towards reaching a two-state solution at the UN. We will certainly continue to reflect the diversity of views from our community within our lesson material and it is a key learning objective for our students to understand how to manage differences and diversity with respect and sensitivity. To the extent possible, we will also design the lesson material to avoid parts being taken out of context selectively.

Second, beyond updating the material, we will also better equip our teachers to engage their students in this CCE lesson. For teachers who would like the extra support, we will organise extra CCE workshops for them to go through the lesson plans with specialists and experienced teachers. Where appropriate, we will involve resource persons to assist with these workshops. This is in addition to the current suite of teachers' preparations within schools.

Given the diversity of backgrounds and experiences of our teachers, some schools have adopted useful approaches, like organising their teachers in teams to conduct the CCE lesson, which enhances the quality of delivery. For example, Jurongville Secondary School carried out this lesson with a pair of teachers. One teacher focused on facilitating the discussion in class while the other looked out for the emotional well-being of students. In Yishun Innova Junior College, the history teacher did a large group briefing on the historical context of the conflict before students discussed the issue further in smaller groups facilitated by their CCE teacher.

For a sensitive topic like the Israel-Hamas conflict, having teachers from different backgrounds and faiths to conduct the lesson together is also a powerful example to our students of how, while we can have different beliefs, we can come together as Singaporeans to discuss complex issues sensitively and respectfully.

We are also making broader efforts to train teachers to teach CCE. Last May, we set up the Singapore Centre for CCE at the National Institute of Education to support professional development of educators in CCE. There is a corps of specialised CCE teachers in the teaching fraternity who are available to mentor their colleagues. Let me assure all teachers that MOE and your school leaders are aware of the challenges you may be facing in delivering the CCE lessons, especially those that touch on sensitive topics. Speak with your school leaders who will support you in carrying out your professional duties.

For us at MOE, there were other useful learning points from this episode.

First learning point: we cannot underestimate the damage that misrepresentation can cause. Let me cite an example. Some online commentators selectively picked out one slide out of many in an MOE lesson deck which was circulated last week, asserting that the schools were telling the students the situation in Israel and Gaza only started on 7 October 2023. This insinuated that MOE was pro-Israel and that we characterised one side as the aggressor and the other side as victim. This riled up many but actually, the words on the said slide were "events since 7 October", and it came after a slide that emphasised the long, complex and often violent history of conflict in the region. In addition, MOE had provided background material on historical developments behind the conflict to help teachers better understand the context. This was meant to be shared with students who wished for more information on the history rather than for the teacher to teach history to the whole class, which is not the learning objective of this CCE lesson. This is, indeed, a sobering reminder that in the online space, it is not always easy to separate those who question the material with well-meaning intentions from those who join the fray with ulterior intent to stir up negative emotions on an already sensitive topic.

Our second learning point: managing differences respectfully is still a work in progress. By and large, Singaporeans express our views in a civil and respectful way. Still, some of the online vitriol and anger towards MOE and our teachers from this episode remind us that we cannot take this for granted. Some educators have received rude and abusive comments. We have come across one picture of an educator being circulated online. The caption contained a racial slur, insulting her as an uneducated person of her ethnicity and encouraged others to make this educator's photo go viral online. MOE takes this very seriously. While we may disagree on issues, personal attacks and racial slurs against fellow Singaporeans cannot be condoned. We have to be positive role models for our children. MOE will investigate all instances of abuse, harassment or threats against our educators. They have MOE's full support and the full protection of the law.

Our third learning point: we must be very watchful for potential external interference. Some external online parties have taken an active interest in our discussions. Some show no hesitation to join in the discussions and add their comments to incite anger and unhappiness. Yet others try to play on Singaporeans' conscience to adopt their positions. It is not difficult to guess the agenda of these external parties. We have to be careful to not fall prey to their attempts to rile up our people and undermine our cohesion.

Fourth learning point: our unity depends on sustained commitment and effort. Last week, Second Minister Maliki Osman and I met more than 300 school principals again to listen to their feedback since we last discussed the issue with them in January. Many of them shared the challenges they encountered and how they had overcome them. It has certainly not been an easy time for our teachers and principals. In the light of this episode and criticisms against our schools and teachers, we discussed frankly, should we continue teaching this CCE lesson, given that some people have suggested that we should abandon it since it is so difficult and sensitive? Is it still worth doing it? In response, many of my principals shared this. We asked ourselves: how can we allow the seeds of hatred and distrust to be planted in our next generation? How can we allow our society to be split by this and other similar issues? When we look back in years to come, would we have discharged our duty as educators if our people became more divided, unable to respond as one, view each other with suspicion or become unable to manage differences or diversity respectfully and sensitively? What is our responsibility as educators? We asked ourselves the toughest two questions. If not us, who? If not now, when?

I drew comfort and confidence from their conviction. Indeed, it is our duty to guide the next generation well, help them develop good character and values and build a sound foundation for them to thrive in the future. Education is a serious responsibility. My MOE colleagues and I feel the weight of our mission. We are determined to discharge our duty and do right by our students. I thank all principals and teachers for standing firm by their convictions despite the challenges and the diversity of their beliefs. I extend my deepest gratitude to all who have given us your feedback. We will continue to work with you all as partners in education so that we can plant the seeds of hope and harmony in the next generation. This remains a work in progress and we are fully committed to keep on improving.

Our teachers and principals asked if they would have the public support in this important yet challenging task. I gave them my full support. I hope Members of this House and the public will do, too. Let us stand united as Singaporeans to support this important yet challenging effort for the sake of our children and the future of Singapore. [Applause.]

I see a lot of Members wanting to ask clarifications. Guillotine time is 1.15 pm. I will try my best to make sure that everyone who has raised their hand will be given an opportunity. Mr Patrick Tay.

Chairman, I have three clarifications as part of the announcements by the political officeholders at this year's MOE COS.

Firstly, on the support for second diploma that has been announced by the Minister last Friday. I think it is good and welcomed news. I am seeing greater disruption, digitalisation and a lot of new in-demand skills. I provided feedback that beyond a diploma, can we also support a second university course? I know we do that for Career Conversion Programmes (CCPs), but can we do that? That is question number one.

Second question is on the entry to polytechnic first year. The Minister just announced the consideration of an additional G2 subject for those wanting to enter first year in the polytechnics. Can the Minister take the suggestion that beyond just one G2, since we are supporting SBB, why not even two G2 subjects? Why one?

Lastly, for the third announcement on the additional $4,000 SkillsFuture Credits for the mature workers. Can we consider allowing, beyond those programmes that the Minister has fleshed out programmes, for example, career coaching and counselling, which are crucial? Because we see a lot of disconnect and dislocation with the mature workers. Can we allow that money to be used for not just career transition programmes but also career coaching, specifically, and counselling?

Mr Chair, let me address the three questions in turn.

The answer to the first question is, yes. We understand that there are calls for us to extend this to a second degree and so forth. At this point in time, I think let us get the scheme started first and get some experience doing this, and focus our finite resources on the group that need it most, which is the ITE students.

We have not precluded extending this to other training programmes, so long as they are good for the people to start a second career or there is a substantive reason for them to take on other roles. So, we keep that in mind. But as to eventually how much we can extend and to what programmes will depend on the quality of the programmes, the relevance of the programmes, as many Members shared, and also depends on our budget space. So, that is the first comment and we note that.

On the second one, can we allow more than one G2 subject to be considered for polytechnic? I think let us start with one. Our goal is to make sure that the students who qualify for the polytechnic has the capabilities and the capacities to finish the course and do it well. And at this point in time, we start with one. We do not preclude revising this in the future, based on the experience gained from those who enter polytechnic with one G2 subject first.

On the third question, at this point in time, we do not use the SkillsFuture Credit for counselling yet because they can access this through some other means, such as through the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme and so forth. So, we want to focus the resources on the programme course itself rather than the counselling. But we will review this and MOM will be making subsequent announcements on how we intend to help people make the right choices on the type of courses that they might want to consider for the next step of their career.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Thank you, Chair. Two questions. One is directed at the Second Minister on the non-Tamil Indian Languages (NTIL) framework. I think the Second Minister did mention that the last time the grants for NTILs were reviewed was in 2022. Can I confirm when the grants were last increased? Does the review mean that the grants also went up? I would appreciate if the Second Minister could confirm that fact. And if not, when was the last time that was done?

My second question is to Minister. I did not expect Minister to respond to some of the questions that had been filed on the Israel-Hamas issue and the CCE curriculum. My question in my PQ was about lessons learned. I think Minister has covered quite a few of these lessons quite extensively, so I render my support to the Ministry's work in trying to ensure that the public conversation is a bit more even-handed and even keeled.

Minister Maliki Osman.

For Mr Pritam Singh's first question, I think the Member's question is: when we reviewed it in 2022, whether it was increased or not. Am I right? Okay.

The answer is, it was reviewed. It was not increased because we felt it was still commensurate with the needs of providing the support for the students who are taking the NTIL lessons. I want to assure Mr Singh that when we reviewed it, we looked at the funding required. And as of now, since the last review until now, we assess that the funding will sufficiently safeguard. The funding that we give to the Board of Teaching and Testing of the South Asian Languages will not undermine and will safeguard the quality of the teaching and the learning of the NTIL students.

When was the last review? I will have to check and get back to you on that.

Mr Darryl David.

Thank you, Chairman. I would like to thank Minister and the political officeholders for answering most of the queries I raised in the cuts. I just have one final clarification to make, which is the issue of Personal Learning Devices (PLDs) for primary school students. I believe I mentioned this in my Budget Debate speech and I mentioned it again in my cut. I am sorry if I missed a reply, but I was here for most of the responses.

If Minister or our political officeholders have not answered that, could I please strongly advocate for that and perhaps get MOE's comment on whether this is something that they are committed to doing? I understand it will take time, but they have done a wonderful job with the secondary school PLDs. So, could Minister please respond to this?

Chair, MOE has indeed considered this issue very seriously about whether we should issue PLDs to our primary school students. We have also done some pilot studies to see whether it is effective and so forth. Our conclusion at this point in time is that, as a general policy, we will not want to issue the devices to every upper primary school student yet.

The reason is because it is not just about the device. We need the programmes. Also, we need the guidance to make sure that the devices are used appropriately. We need to strengthen how we guide our youngest students to use the devices responsibly so that we do not get into the ills of using those devices inadvertently.

But having said that, what we have done is that instead of issuing every upper primary school student with the device, we have increased the provision of the devices in the school so that for more classes, they can use the devices and to share the devices rather than to own it themselves. So, we are fully committed to leveraging on technology to the extent possible to enhance the quality of teaching in our classes.

But as to the ownership of the device, we will need further studies before we come to a conclusion where we can balance the benefits with the potential downsides of having the youngest students in our cohort managing the devices on their own.

There are many Members wanting to seek clarification. I will give priority to those who have filed cuts. Members, please keep clarifications short, and from the front bench, likewise, responses short. Mr Gerald Giam.

Thank you, Sir. I have questions for Minister Maliki and Minister Chan.

First, to Minister Chan. I would like to state that I support the discussion of sensitive national and international student issues in classrooms, and I would like to honour the teachers who took on this challenge to discuss this topic with their students. My question is, were there instances where the CCE lesson on the Israel-Hamas war was delivered lecture-style to several classes at the same time?

If so, would MOE consider ensuring that CCE lessons on sensitive and controversial subjects are conducted in small classes, so there is more opportunity for discussion and dialogue not just between teachers and students, but also between students facilitated by the teacher? I appreciate the examples shared by Minister about the junior colleges, but can this be standardised across all the schools?

Second, to Minister Maliki, I understand that MOE spends more money per student on SPED schools than in mainstream schools, but I am sure Minister Maliki appreciates that parents of students with special needs often have also higher medical expenses and intervention programme costs. So, in the interest of equity and inclusivity, can MOE move towards making all public school fees the same for both SPED and mainstream schools? I appreciate that in this Budget, it has been lowered to $90. But the gulf between $13 and $90 is still quite significant.

Chair, indeed, that is what we are doing. Because different schools have different capacities and different needs, so they will organise their sessions based on their capacities and needs. Some schools have adopted a two-tier approach whereby the one that is more knowledgeable of the context sets the context and then they allow the discussions. And we fully agree with the Member that for many of these, we need smaller discussions because the students are trying to grapple with their own emotions. So, in fact, we have a pedagogy that is called "Think, Pair and Share". So, the two persons start sharing about their different perspectives and then coming to recognise each other's differences and diversity of perspective, learning to empathise with one another before we go into the bigger group sharing.

Sir, I thank Mr Giam for his question. We fully understand, fully appreciate and fully empathise with families with children with special education needs. And that is the reason why we continue to review, on a yearly basis, how we can continue to support them. This year we have announced that we have brought down the maximum monthly fee to $90. We agree that the gap is still wide and 50% are already paying similar fees. This is really because of the differentiation in the SPED school because the SPED school also varies; not all of them have similar fees.

We try to make sure that, on balance, more of those who are able to bring the fees down, it is more equivalent to our national schools. But we will work with the SPED schools, because in the SPED schools they also have got different variations in terms of their disabilities. And some schools with higher disability needs that they are responding to do have higher fees. We will work with those schools to see how we can help them.

For our students in those schools that really do need further help, we have worked with the SPED schools and encouraged them to go to the SPED schools and get further assistance. And where possible, we will continue to support these schools and these students.

Mr Ong Hua Han.

Chair, I have two clarifications for Minister Maliki. I thank him for addressing my cut. If I understood the Minister correctly, there will be sufficient opportunities to integrate students with disabilities in mainstream schools. Can the Minister share some examples highlighting how this can be achieved? My second question is, will MOE consider proactively including students with disabilities into activities, like physical education lessons?

Sir, as I mentioned in my response, today, 80% of students with special education needs are already in our mainstream schools. And many of those who are keen in the special needs sector also understand that we have to assess the students' conditions and whether they will be able to harness their potential to the fullest when they are in mainstream school vis-à-vis in the SPED school. Some of them do require mainstream school.

So, 80% are in the mainstream school and we will assess such that we try to integrate them as much as possible. And when they are in the mainstream school, they go through a similar programme as the other students, including physical education, where abilities are commensurate to their disabilities.

We are also working towards creating opportunities for mainstream schools to partner SPED schools so that they can continue to also provide opportunities for students from mainstream school, whether they do have peers who are special needs in their schools or not, so that they can continue to also appreciate interactions with students from SPED schools.

Ms Jean See.

Thank you, Chair. I thank Minister of State Gan Siow Huang for her reply. I would like to provide context to the request for the targeted approach to curating training for freelancers. I understand that SSG relies on job transformation maps and industry transformation maps (ITMs) to determine the courses to fund. However, these maps address companies' employment needs, then the needs of freelancers who are actually engaged by businesses to augment their operational needs in specialised areas.

Freelancers, like coaches and creators, want to partake in all these different initiatives because staying relevant is actually more urgent and pressing for them. And therefore, they ask for relevant training that is applicable to their work and must be valued by the service buyers, who also include Government agencies. Could the Minister of State share what approach would SSG take in its approach to course curation, to cater to the needs of freelancers?

I thank Ms Jean See for that suggestion. Indeed, SSG stands guided by the partners that we work with, whether it is NTUC, the professional bodies or trade associations and yes, job transformation maps do also feature in how we decide on which courses we need to provide upskilling opportunities. If Ms Jean See knows of freelancers or self-employed persons who have additional needs that are not already catered in the range of causes supported by SkillsFuture, do let us know and we will consider them too.

Dr Wan Rizal.

Chairman, I would like to thank Minister Chan, Minister Maliki and Minister of State Gan for sharing MOE's plans. I also appreciate Minister Chan's clarification and the way forward to improve our CCE curriculum. I do have more clarifications.

At the top of my head, I am always thinking about the teachers, and I do believe that they need to be protected, especially when certain things are happening online in terms of abuse and online harm. What are the plans for us to protect them? I remember we had the issue in the Ministry of Health (MOH) last year and we did well to issue a Protection from Online Manipulation Act (POFMA) direction to all these false stories online.

Given the evolving nature of global events and the way in which unverified slides and materials, purportedly from the CCE, are being circulated online, how does MOE incorporate the feedback from the various stakeholders, including parents, educators and students, in the development and review of the CCE curriculum? We talked about the PSGs earlier. I wonder if the PSGs can play a bigger role in trying to address these issues?

In the interest of transparency, can the MOE release the teaching materials or the right slides that were used, to the public, so that we can make sure that the false news is not being shared online further.

At the top of my head, I also wonder if we can issue a POFMA direction to such platforms for circulating certain slides.

Chair, first, let me thank both sides of the House for their support for our educators and their support for them in conducting this very challenging CCE lesson. I am truly thankful for their support.

Indeed, teachers are our most precious resources. I have studied very closely the last few years why countries do well and do not do well for their Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and their educational outcomes. And even in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) report, it comes out very clearly.

If there is one reason and only one reason that we choose as to why an education system works or not work, it is the quality of the teachers. I asked myself this very difficult question: what determines the quality of the teachers? Is it because of the pay that we give them? Is it because of the infrastructure that we provide for them, the lesson material?

All those are important. But just as the OECD report has highlighted, ultimately, the most important support that we can give our teachers and attract the best and most committed people to join the teaching service in service of our future generation is the respect that we give to our teachers.

When a society loses the respect for their teachers, when their teachers feel disrespected and hassled, no good people want to join the teaching service, then, regardless of the policies, regardless of the infrastructure and the investment that we have, it will come to naught. So, I thank Members for their support.

On Dr Wan Rizal's point, I also discussed this extensively with my colleagues in MOE whether we should just publish the MOE slides. We have come to this one conclusion that even the slides will not do justice to the teaching done by the teachers because the slides do not speak. For parents or the public who have concerns about this, we would rather meet them face-to-face and explain to them how the slides are used. Because we have tested this and no matter how we try to make the slides public or available, if it is done selectively without interpretation, we will still come back to the same issue.

Every teacher must know their own students to customise their teaching accordingly. So, it is not a one-size-fits-all. But, yet, at the same time, we must protect our teachers to not have them be subjected to the pressures from all different sources to change the material according to their versions of the event. So, we find a balance between these two. I will encourage interested parties to contact us and let us go through with you how a lesson is conducted beyond just what is said in the slides.

We are running short of time. So, remember, keep it short, responses short. Ms Hazel Poa.

My clarification relates to the Minister's response on my call for a through-train pilot programme. The Minister said that if we see our worth as being defined by examination results, only removing the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) will not remove the stress and neither is removing all stress our goal. Instead, we need to help our students manage and overcome stress.

Does the Minister not agree that if we insist on making the PSLE compulsory and using the scores as a basis for deciding secondary school, then that reinforces the idea that our worth is defined by examination results? Whatever we may say, action speaks louder than words and what parents see are the effects of PSLE results on their children's educational path.

Instead, on the other hand, making PSLE optional will send the message that primary education is not just about the PSLE score and removing the PSLE will not remove all the stress.

Does the Minister not agree that children will have stresses in their lives beyond PSLE? There will be annual school examinations, stresses in other areas of their lives, like relationships with parents, siblings, classmates and friends.

The Minister also made the point on how we select students who are suitable for through-train at the age of six and if we cannot select, how do we support the diverse learning profile, and that PSLE and SEC are a means to help students find a suitable learning environment.

I wish to clarify that the point here is not for MOE to select, but to give parents the choice. Those who believe that all the time, energy and resources put in to prepare students for the PSLE and dealing with all the stresses can be put to better use elsewhere to teach them real-life skills and encourage their natural curiosity towards the unknown.

Ms Hazel Poa, I have given you a lot of latitude.

Yes. Does the Minister agree that the annual school examinations and regular assessments can already serve the purpose of identifying different learning needs of students, and SBB within the school can assist in differentiated learning without overtaxing our teachers?

Chair, I understand that Ms Hazel Poa was not in the Chamber when I gave my answer last Friday. Perhaps, it was a bit late. Maybe Ms Hazel Poa would like to go through what I have said and consider it.

As I have said, every idea is not without merits. But every idea also has implications that we need to step through and those questions that I have raised and shared with this House remain.

That is why MOE is carefully considering all these before we make such an important decision with serious implications for the students that will have to undergo this system. It is not about not giving choices to the parents. It is about how we support our students for the next 10 years, given their diverse abilities, given their diverse needs. Can we do all of these in one school? We already have challenges doing this in one system. So, the challenges are not trivial.

And indeed, over time, we have expanded the Direct School Admissions (DSA) system to allow more dimensions of abilities beyond academic success. Ultimately, exams are but a means for us to help our students find the most appropriate environment to learn for the next stage. It is not a competition with others. It is always to surpass ourselves more than to surpass others.

Mr Sharael Taha.

I thank Minister Chan for his reply and addressing our PQs as part of the COS. I think it is important that we provide an opportunity for our students to discuss current affairs in CCE, as they are already presented with this information.

But one challenge of doing this is emotions can, indeed, be very raw and it requires masterful facilitation in order to achieve the intended objective. So, a few supplementary questions for our Minister.

How do we check that our teachers are ready to facilitate such discussions without imposing their own opinions on the matter? I welcome the suggestion that we should do it in pairs or at least provide some guidance to the teachers or some support to the teachers while they go through it for the first few trials.

Second, I welcome the Minister's reply that the information is to be updated. Can I suggest that we share the instances where we re-voted for ceasefire and support for humanitarian assistance, suggested in October 2023, in February, and in the past 50 years, on our stand on supporting humanitarian rights?

Thirdly, as we deal with these changes, will we be pausing the lessons? And before we restart it again, can we trial the lessons with a focus group or with a pilot group of individuals and get their feedback on it?

On information, in particular, there are rumours that the infamous Samuel and Arun slide was not created by MOE. Can the Minister share a bit more insights on to that?

And lastly, I have raised a PQ on what support is provided to teachers when they receive backlash from parents and the general public, and whether the school management will take action against the teachers who are subjected to these complaints. I think we need to support our teachers and educators a bit more in this space.

Chair, let me respond to the five points.

First point, indeed, I shared this with my principals personally, when we had our large group sharing in January. I said when we conduct this lesson, it is not to assign teachers just based on appointment. In fact, we need teachers who are able and willing, and are able to do this professionally. This is why, before they conducted the lessons, the principals and the school leaders had their own internal sessions with the teachers so that they can gauge who is able to do what and then, they can form the composite teams to do this effectively. Of course, as they do more, they will gather experience.

In fact, one of the principals, during the large group sharing told us this, "We are so inexperienced in this aspect and we need to build our experience to facilitate sensitive conversations respectfully. We need to do this, but if we do not start, we will never be there." So, indeed, we want to make sure that the teachers do not impose their views and we do this as a session ourselves before we even do it with the students.

On the second point, well noted. Yes, indeed, I have said in my reply that our record on the Palestine issues will be as part of the materials, but we are careful not to inundate the younger students with all the history. But for the older students who require these materials, these will be made available to them.

Third, we are now in the process of updating the slides and also conducting further training with our teachers as we go along and this is our promise to everyone, that we will continue to do this as we go along. It is not possible for us to stop everything, because things are evolving. And even if we do not conduct the lesson, the questions, as the Member said, are being asked by our students and our teachers must know how to respond, how to guide them to respond sensitively and respectfully.

Fourth point: I will deal with the backlash from some of the public who make threats to our teachers. And as I have said in my statement just now, they have MOE's full support and we will also make sure that they have the full support of the law.

But I truly, truly appreciate the support of Members of this House, because without your support, others might be emboldened to think that they can take advantage of our teachers, even if they do not agree with what we say, because the respect for our teachers is most important. They are doing a very challenging job. They are trying their best. They could have decided not to do this and we are no better off as a society. But the fact that they stepped forward, they do this for us, do this with us, let us do it with them, let us support them.

A last point on the Samuel and Arun slide, there was this slide circulating in the deck that says that MOE trivialised the issue because we equated it with a football match. This was not in MOE's original deck. For those of you who are very good at detecting scams, you will know that the background of the slide is also different from the rest of the deck.

But upon investigation, we found out that this particular slide was inserted in one particular school because there is a particular context for the teacher to take the initiative to help their students of this age group to relate to something that is more relatable to them. I do not fault the teachers for that. I think they tried their best.

But what is happening online is that this is then taken out of context to say that this is the MOE slide for everyone, including the junior college students. This is why I say we need to have confidence and trust in our teachers. Our teachers know their students, and they must be able to have some ability to communicate things with their students in the way that is best for them.

I really appreciate the Member raising this issue because it is never MOE's intention to trivialise anything. The issue is already complicated enough. We do not need to add more complications to the issue.

I will squeeze in one or two more clarifications. Mr Faisal Manap, a quick one.

Sir, I would like to seek a point of clarification from Minister Chan. I heard Minister acknowledging that the issue of the Israel-Palestine conflict is a sensitive one a few times in his speech. I just want to know whether MOE considered in the first place, to consult parents of younger students whether they are comfortable to have their children partake in this particular CCE lesson, which touches on sensitive issues, like what Minister said? I believe this is done similarly for the Ministry's sexuality education. So, just one clarification.

Chair, I would like to make a distinction between sexuality education and CCE lessons.

Sexuality education deals with very personal issues and families' beliefs, and so forth. For CCE issues, we are talking about people relating to one another respectfully and sensitively. It is not talking about the conflict. It is talking about if there are diversity of views, there are differences in view, and how we can manage to proceed as one. This is about interpersonal relations, about how we respond as fellow Singaporeans.

The conflict itself is a context, but it is not the key part of it. The conflict, just like any other conflicts, may pull our people in different directions because of their different backgrounds and different beliefs. But the central part of the CCE is to go back to the four things that we mentioned. How do we help our students deal with their emotions when they are being bombarded by information all around, how to distinguish news, fake news, misinformation and others? How do we discuss things respectfully, given and notwithstanding our differences? How do we build a cohesive society amidst all these challenges?

And I go back to what I said. We are a young nation. Our identity is being formed, and it is never easy because we can always be seen as part of some other larger civilisation forces. And our challenge is not to discard our past and build a new future without a past. Neither is our vision one whereby we all cling on to our past and have no common future.

We want the best of both worlds where we deeply understand our past and yet at the same time have a set of shared values, a set of ethos that can bring us forward together as Singaporeans, united as one.

We have reached the end of the clarification phase. In fact, we have gone over 30 minutes and the guillotine time has been reached. So, can I invite Mr Patrick Tay to withdraw your amendment?

I would like to thank Minister Chan Chun Sing, Minister Maliki Osman, as well as Minister of State Gan Siow Huang for sharing the MOE's plans, policies and programmes this year. I want to place on record our thanks to the MOE staff, SSG staff, as well as all the educators and trainers across Singapore for banding together and making a difference to all of us and to ensure we stay ready, relevant and resilient – ready with new skills and knowledge, relevant to the new jobs and the future and resilient to the new changes and many curveballs that are hurled at us.

With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]

[(proc text) The sum of $14,327,475,900 for Head K ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]

[(proc text) The sum of $620,000,000 for Head K ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]

Head S, Ministry of Manpower. Mr Desmond Choo.

Mr Chairman, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head S of the Estimates be reduced by $100".

Mr Chairman, our workforce is ageing and growth is slowing to zero gradually. Therefore, we must have as high a workforce participation rate as possible.

Our female workforce participation rate has improved over the years. Over the last 10 years, it has improved from 58.1% to 62.6%, but it still lags behind the rates for males. When women have at least one child, the participation rate drops by 10% to 16% compared to women with no children in 2018. This suggests that caregiving responsibilities reduces workforce participation.

There exists also a gender pay gap.

According to the Ministry's 2018 statistics, the unadjusted gender pay gap is 16.3%. Labour market factors, such as men being over-represented in higher paying occupations such as managing directors, chief executive officers (CEOs) and general managers accounted for roughly 7% of the gap. The natural question is why not more women are taking on such top jobs? Some academics attribute this to women not taking on higher paying roles that tend to demand for work to be prioritised over personal responsibilities. Women are also increasingly better educated than men in Singapore, especially in the younger age brackets; 64% of females aged 25 to 34 years old have university education compared to 56% for men.

Singapore's adjusted gender pay gap is 6% in 2018. This was 8.8% in 2002. There has clearly been progress over the years. What the adjusted gender pay gap means too is after adjusting for education, age, occupation and industry, women in Singapore earn on average 6% less than their male counterparts. This difference is magnified when we consider disparity over a 40- to 50-year-long career.

According to a Ministry of Manpower (MOM) study in January 2020, the authors stated that even though the model can explain for more than half of the unadjusted gender pay gap, the unexplained component could reflect the effects of parenthood, caregiving responsibilities and unmeasured employment characteristics, such as work experience, firm type and job scope as well as discrimination. The same study also observed that more women are primary caregivers, and this could be one of the reasons for the gender pay gap.

In essence, the increase in caregiving responsibilities could have resulted in women exiting the workforce and also getting paid less. We need to tackle this structural problem of the gender pay gap. I agree that it is multifaceted as the 2020 study has noted. I would like to examine two facets of this issue and suggest possible remedies.

Human resources practices. Conceptually, the human resource practice of performance grading could have inherent biases against women. For example, if there is a good performance grade to be given and the choice was between two employees, both are as good but one was away on maternity leave for 16 weeks, which employee would be more likely to get the good grade? This is done for a good reason. The organisation should rightly reward the employee who had contributed more over the full year.

But we can imagine that if this persists over multiple childbirths, and promotion depends on multi-year performance consistency, then we can imagine a mother's progression being derailed. It seems plausible that this could have resulted in women and mothers not being able to scale the heights of their professions. We must guard against such well-intended human resource practice driving unintended biases against women. This is perhaps what we call the "motherhood penalty" and we owe a duty to doing right by our mothers.

The solutions are not easy to come by. In 2018, Iceland passed the Equal Pay Standard legislation, which requires companies with 25 or more employees to prove that they pay employees of all genders equally for the same work or work of equal value. Under the Equal Pay Standard, companies must undergo a certification process every three years, during which they are required to analyse their wage structures, identify and rectify any gender-based wage disparities. Failure to comply can result in fines and sanctions. Iceland's pay gap closed by 3.4% subsequent to this passing of the legislation.

While this might be too bold a move for us at this stage or it needs to be contextualised to our needs, there are other steps that we can take.

First, there must be greater disclosure and transparency in the gender composition of senior management roles and compensation. Some employers are rightly concerned about wage transparency, but we can do so like today when board directors' fees are declared in broad tiers. It is still a positive step forward. We can start with the listed companies in the Public Service. Greater transparency and reporting requirements can spur organisations to review and improve or change their practices. I encourage HR practitioners to examine and improve upon the performance evaluation criteria that have embedded undue biases, for example, ranking a mother on maternity leave with other colleagues on the same basis is inherently biased.

Next, we must broaden our caregiving support. There are entrenched societal norms of women in Singapore. Women often bear a disproportionate burden of caregiving responsibilities, and this can be at the expense of their careers. How do we help them to manage their careers and caregiving duties?

This caregiving is beyond those required for children. It includes supporting elderly parents too. We must support our women better, offer affordable childcare, flexible work arrangements (FWAs) and flexible caregiving policies. We have, indeed, made strides in ensuring affordable childcare and I look forward to the release of the tripartite guidelines on FWAs.

I hope that we can also consider implementing leave policies to support employees in caring for elderly parents, particularly considering Singapore's ageing population. Employers have reasonable concerns because there would already be too many leave provisions when manpower is already tight. The reality is maternity and childcare leave consumption will continue to decrease because of our low total fertility rate.

The statistics also show that caregiving can take a worker out of the workforce. Some have questioned if a few days of caregiving leave could make a difference? My answer is yes, because it underscores our commitment to helping our workers. We have to start somewhere, no matter how small the first step is.

The number of employers offering paid family care leave in Singapore has doubled from 15% in 2012 to 30% in 2020. This is, indeed, encouraging. But we must remember that workers' caregiving responsibilities will only increase in the future. We must start addressing this now. Our workers need our support to care for their dependents, young and elderly alike. I wish to call on all businesses in Singapore to take concrete steps in re-examining their leave policies and consider offering caregiving leave. In the longer term, I hope to see the implementation of paid statutory caregiving leave for all workers.

Closing the gender pay gap requires us not to only confront the societal and caregiving expectations of women, but also the structural barriers that limit women's economic opportunities.

Mr Chairman, next, I will speak on supporting our older workers to stay gainfully employed. I have spoken on the importance of harnessing the experience and expertise that our older workers bring to the table, especially in light of our ageing demographics.

We have made significant strides in raising the retirement and re-employment ages for Singaporean workers. And I am heartened that our older workers do appreciate our efforts in doing so. I understand from the Ministry that between 2017 and 2021, around 97% of resident employees were offered and accepted re-employment contracts after reaching the retirement age. Could the Ministry clarify how many percent of these employees were offered re-employment contracts of one year and whether the re-employment contracts were subsequently extended?

On training our older workers, the findings from NTUC's survey conducted in 2022 underscore the keen interest older workers have in upscaling. Yet six out of 10, or of all workers, were of the view that older workers were given fewer training opportunities as compared to the younger ones. Re-employed workers might get even less training opportunities.

On another front, as training participation declines with age, it is crucial to implement age-universal job redesign strategies. Ironically, older workers actually need more training because their odds of skills obsolescence are higher.

The PW Mark was implemented to distinguish employers that have leaned into providing progressive wages voluntarily. We can consider distinguishing progressive and inclusive employers which have significantly improved their business processes, training and job roles to help older workers succeed. Incentives can be provided to such employers, especially in the absence of the WorkPro.

Perhaps, there is now a renewed need to reinstate WorkPro, which was previously implemented as a scheme for companies to receive grants of up to $425,000 to implement age-friendly workplaces with an emphasis on retaining older workers.

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

Chairman, what might our future workforce look like? First, it will become more intergenerational because our population is ageing, and people are working and staying in the workforce longer. At the same time, because of more rapid technological changes than ever before, the difference in backgrounds, mindsets and skillsets across different generations will become sharper.

Second, there will be more churn in our future workforce for all of us, again, because of the pace of change. Our economy must allow for creative destruction to stay relevant and vibrant, but for the individual, churn in one's career is tumultuous. We must help Singaporeans cope.

Third, there will be a greater need for our future workforce to engage in agile and deep learning throughout life to deal with churn. We must create a pervasive culture of learning and skilling throughout life in Singapore.

Fourth, amid these challenges, there will be growing needs for FWAs because our family structure is getting smaller and so, caregiving burdens are more concentrated on individuals. At the same time, our knowledge of care itself has become more advanced, whether it is for seniors, special needs or mental health. And so, the caregiving demands of tomorrow will be far greater and we need FWAs.

Fifth, our future workforce will be increasingly cross-cultural because there is simply not enough Singaporeans and we will need human capital from around the world.

Amid this confluence of complex changes, how does MOM plan to develop a future-ready workforce that is more intergenerational and cross-cultural, more prepared for a new normal of churn, more engaged in agile and deep learning throughout life and more flexible in its work arrangements?

Chairman, at last year’s MOM COS, the Manpower Minister announced the setting up of a new feature in the MyCareersFuture portal known as the CareersFinder. Perhaps because of his medical background, he couched it as a tool to keep tap of our career health, very much like physical health.

When I heard of it last year, I thought it was a refreshing approach to encourage workers to take stock of the state of their career health, starting with better insights and awareness of our own employability situation and thereafter, taking proactive and purposeful steps to keep career health in good shape.

The CareersFinder beta version was launched in the third quarter of last year. It uses the data on skills adjacencies and jobs churn in the workforce to help workers discover the personalised upskilling needed and identify possible career opportunities based on their individual profiles.

By harnessing the power of artificial intelligence (AI) and the data, it is hoped that the efficacy of job matching can be improved and friction reduced. This new feature is particularly important and useful to those in their mid-careers who tend to be more career vulnerable and hence, need better career agility and resilience.

In my conversations with those in their mid-careers, many have concerns on the durability of their current skillsets and jobs and how the fast-paced technology advancement, such as AI and blockchain, would impact their jobs and career development.

In that context, can I ask the Minister for an update on the CareersFinder beta? How has the take up been and has it achieved the outcomes intended? Also, as a whole, how can the various career health initiatives benefit individuals, employers and the economy?

On the upcoming support to assist the involuntarily unemployed jobseekers, I know the details of the support measure is still to be finalised. Nevertheless, can I ask if the Minister can share the broad principles and the parameters that will be featured in this new scheme? Has the Government taken in feedback from the public and as well as the tripartite partners in the design of the support scheme?

Temporary financial support for the involuntarily unemployed is not something new in Singapore and for some residents, the ComCare does just that.

Some countries have practised some form of support for the involuntarily unemployed but many end up with poorly designed unemployment benefits, which can inadvertently make it more attractive for involuntarily unemployed workers to stay unemployed rather than to return to the workforce.

How has the Ministry incorporated learnings from these countries and feedback from the public and tripartite partners in the design of the upcoming support scheme for involuntarily unemployed jobseekers? How will the support scheme be administered? What is the anticipated average duration of support required for the involuntarily unemployed? How do we ensure that while the support scheme must assist the involuntarily unemployed, it does not make it more attractive for the involuntarily unemployed workers to stay unemployed? Can we ensure retraining and upskilling using SkillsFuture credit and actively searching for jobs including compulsory attendance for career, curriculum vitae and interview coaching be prerequisites for support?

Mr Chairman, firstly, I commend the expansion of the Government's Progressive Wage Credit Scheme (PWCS), which significantly aids businesses in supporting higher wages. In the medium term, wage increases can only be supported along with productivity increases. Hence, we need to continue assisting employers in creating an environment conducive to workers' training to increase workers’ productivity and support employers to realise enhanced firm productivity. What are MOM's plans to support our employers to do so?

The rise in Local Qualifying Salary (LQS), as announced in Budget 2024, from $1,400 to $1,600 indicates broader cross-sector backing to uplift lower-wage workers. Nevertheless, as the PWM expands across additional sectors and wage ladders commence from an average of $2,650 for an entry-grade security officer and $1,915 in the food and beverage (F&B) sector, how will LQS support a greater number of lower-wage workers? I seek MOM to share the number of lower-wage workers expected to experience wage increases due to the elevated LQS.

Yet there are many challenges faced by employers, such as escalating utility costs and increasing manpower expenses. I wish to highlight the shared responsibility of consumers and employers in supporting lower-wage workers here. What are the strategies to enhance consumer awareness of the PWM Mark to bring the consumer's role to the forefront in supporting businesses committed to fair wages?

Mr Chairman, Singapore must maintain its openness to talent and uphold global connections, particularly amid declining local labour force growth stemming from our ageing population and low birth rates. As we remain open, it is crucial to continuously review and calibrate foreign workforce policies. How can we ensure that these policies contribute to Singaporeans' real wage growth? Is it timely to establish clearer distinctions between various work passes based on the specific job appeal to Singaporeans? Alongside these distinctions, should we adjust the dependency ratio ceiling to ensure that enterprises have the necessary manpower to thrive while ensuring equitable access and higher wages for Singaporeans?

It is important to note that existing foreign worker levies, LQS and the PWM are effective levers to support higher wages for Singaporeans.

The persistent challenge of not being able to send workers for training due to manpower shortages necessitates a nuanced approach. As part of the strategy to ensure that foreign workforce policies foster business growth while enhancing collaboration with local talent, I propose implementing temporary quota increases contingent upon commitments to human capital development and local worker training.

Furthermore, I suggest that the temporary quota be linked to a commitment to participate in the Institute of Human Resources Professionals' (IHRP's) human capital diagnostic tool (HCDT) professional programme and to implement its recommendations. This approach allows time for local workers to engage in training, leading to overall improvements in human capital development within firms and maximising Singaporean workers' growth potential.

Programmes, such as SkillsFuture Level-Up, and various improvements to SkillsFuture, are a key pillar to empowering Singaporeans to take up good jobs. With enhanced SkillsFuture funding, the challenge is to ensure that employees, while in their jobs, can identify and acquire new skillsets aligned with corporate objectives. Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) without an HR business partner (HRBP) role may face difficulties in corporate alignment. Chief HR Officer (CHRO)-as-a-service can be a solution to mimic the HRBP role and maximise the translation value of SkillsFuture credits.

The increased disruption in job scopes highlights the need for improved job redesign capabilities, especially with the support for acquiring new skills in Budget 2024. Developing measurement tools and benchmarks for equitable assessment of salary ranges for newly acquired skillsets is crucial.

We need to support employers to drive transformation by redesigning jobs for new and emerging opportunities. Job redesign can also help to assimilate older workers as they reach retirement and extend their working duration. Coupled with FWAs, it will create the nexus for a future-ready labour market. Hence, I would like to ask MOM how we are empowering employers to re-design jobs. How are we empowering workers to improve their career health?

Chairman, according to the preliminary estimates released by MOM, retrenchments in Singapore have more than doubled in 2023 from 2022 to 14,320 cases. Recent stories about ongoing retrenchment and redundancy exercises in companies, such as Lazada and Electrolux, have only intensified discussions in public about retrenchment.

With the threat of retrenchment for our workers all too real, it comes as a surprise to many Singaporeans that the right to retrenchment benefits is not enshrined in legislation here in Singapore for any category of worker. Generally, benefits upon retrenchment depend on the company's policy of severance package and retrenchment benefits, as well as the terms of the contract of employment.

In the LifeSG guide on retrenchment benefits, the prevailing norms on paying retrenchment benefits are around two weeks to one month for each year of service, with unionised companies seeing one month of salary for each year of service. In contrast to our prevailing practice, many jurisdictions around East Asia have enshrined both the right to some form of retrenchment benefits and the amounts to be paid.

For instance, under Part 5A of the Employment Ordinance in Hong Kong, both the right to severance payments, except in cases of dismissals, and the amount of severance payment to be paid are enshrined in legislation. Malaysia regulates both the employment termination and layoff benefits regulations. Thailand's Labour Protection Act also determines the severance pay amount for workers depending on their employment period. South Korea grants full-time employees severance pay under the Labour Standards Act regardless of reasons of termination. Taiwan sees employers liable to pay severance pay under the Labour Standards Act. Indonesia has a minimum statutory severance and long service pay. In general, such payouts are close to a month's wages for every year of service.

In 2018, I asked the previous Minister of Manpower how it ensures companies pay retrenchment benefits that meet industry norms as defined by the tripartite standards for companies that retrench workers for reasons not related to financial distress.

The Minister confirmed that according to the MOM's survey on retrenchment benefits in 2017, around 90% of establishments which retrenched workers paid retrenchment benefits while more than 70% of them paid benefits which met or exceeded prevailing norms.

Sir, the Forward Singapore exercise made it a point to identify Singaporean workers who undertake hand and heart work, such as trade professionals like electricians and plumbers, as well as those in the healthcare and aged care sector. It called to ensure that they are rewarded fairly, since these workers contribute to our collective higher standard of living. In view of the respectable number of employers according to the Retrenchment Benefits 2017 report who are already providing retrenchment benefits meeting or exceeding the prevailing norms, I ask MOM to review its position on retrenchment benefits and progressively consider mandating retrenchment benefits for hand and heart workers to nudge employers to do so.

At the same time, we should also look at mandating retrenchment benefits for workmen and employees covered by Part 4 of the Employment Act to start with. Some groups I mentioned are the most deserving among us with wages below the median and it is crucial that we pay special attention to them. Legislating their right to retrenchment benefits would be one concrete way of supporting workers in the name of Forward Singapore.

Sir, there are approximately 186,000 craftsmen and trades workers in Singapore. Their median salary is $2,700 and their median age is 56 years. Over 70% are foreigners. The low wages, ageing workforce and heavy reliance on foreign labour in this crucial sector is concerning. I acknowledge the efforts by MOM, industry associations, unions and institutes of higher learning (IHLs) to professionalise these trades. However, attracting young Singaporeans remains a pressing challenge.

To overcome this, we need to first boost societal respect for the skilled tradesperson, or "tradies", as they are affectionately called in Australia. Schools and trades associations can create greater public awareness about what tradies do. They are not all dirty, difficult and dangerous jobs. For example, licensed plumbers often do more supervision and inspections of plumbing works than the dirty work themselves. Young people who prefer working with their hands should be encouraged to consider skilled trades instead of forcing themselves to study an academic subject they have little interest in.

Second, we need to lower the barriers for entry for Singaporeans to become licensed tradespersons. All courses and mentorship programmes leading to licensing should be more subsidised under SkillsFuture, even for workers under 40. And more places should be set aside for Singaporeans.

Third, to raise incomes of skilled tradespersons, agencies must rigorously enforce regulations against unlicensed individuals performing tasks that are legally reserved for licensed tradespersons. This will uphold the required quality and safety standards and prevent licensed tradesperson's earnings from being unjustly undercut by unlicensed competitors.

Sir, for avoidance of doubt, I declare that I am the director and shareholder of a company that provides technology solutions to training providers.

As we look towards building a resilient and future-friendly workforce, it is crucial to recognise the invaluable contributions of skilled tradesmen in essential professions like plumbing, electrical work, air conditioning servicing and mechanical repairs. Our skilled tradesmen and women have forged fulfilling careers over the years, but as Singapore transforms itself economically over the years, these are taken for granted, but essential trades are at risk of a diminishing Singaporean worker base.

We must continue to make these trades exciting to attract new talents, such as youths and mid-careerists. To achieve this, we must provide clarity on the career pathways for those entering the skilled trades. Given that master tradesmen are forged from a blend of strong foundations in theory and practical unique ground experiences, it makes sense to reintroduce the apprenticeship programmes. Apprenticeships can offer clear milestones and support to progress to the next levels.

This includes opportunities to attain certifications, licences and eventually to become master-level tradesmen. From our discussions with our trade associations and guilds, master-level tradesmen can earn upwards of $8,000 a month, particularly if they become business owners. Clarity on career progressions is essential as many may not be aware of the potential for growth and advancements in this field.

To this end, NTUC has started work on the career progression model to better the viability of such trades as livelihoods.

How would the Ministry further the career progression model through tripartism? Would the Ministry further their work with trade associations and guilds to not only highlight the career paths available but also in articulating clear wage and career progression levels?

Mr Patrick Tay, you can take your two cuts together.

I am glad that we have seen a series of enhancements to SkillsFuture at Budget and at MOE's COS debate earlier. Professionals, managers and executives (PMEs), especially those above 40 years of age, are anxious about the prospects of their employment and employability. I have three suggestions for MOM to bolster SkillsFuture to empower Singaporeans.

First, with the new growth sectors and crafts and to meet the needs, passion and interests of Singaporeans, especially PMEs who are looking at career conversions, can MOM consider expanding the range of courses and programmes beyond the current suite of Career Conversion Programmes (CCP) offerings?

Second, mindset shift training as well as career coaching and counselling are key to reducing unemployment and under-employment and increase employment and employability. I hope as we strengthen the career health of Singaporeans to provide greater support in this space, including to employers and placement arms and intermediaries, such as e2i.

Third, with the SkillsFuture training allowance support just announced, which will be up to $3,000 per month for Singaporeans to undergo programmes at our IHLs, I suggest for MOM to review the current CCP training allowance rates during the training stint and period.

I wish to ask MOM for the status of the strengthening of the Singaporean Core efforts in Singapore. I am aware that work for the Workplace Fairness Legislation is under way. On the same note, can MOM also update us on the Fair Consideration Framework, the status of the triple weak watchlist, and the number and type of cases reported, investigated and closed at the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practice (TGFEP)?

I also wish to ask if the Minister has any updates, now that COMPASS has been in action for the past six months, and the review of the Employment Pass (EP) qualifying salaries?

By the same token, human capital practitioners, practices and processes are key to foster a fair and inclusive workplace, including one with a strong Singaporean Core. I am aware IHRP is doing good work to certify human capital practitioners with the IHRP certification, as they are also the national Job Redesign Centre of Excellence, to help companies, including through their human capital diagnostics tool, to level up companies' practices and processes and productivity.

Can MOM progressively mandate the certification of HR practitioners with the IHRP certification? And in the interim, perhaps companies should have at least one IHRP-certified HR professional before they can be allowed to hire foreign manpower. I think the upcoming Workplace Fairness Legislation is an opportune time to push this ahead and perhaps, even incorporate some of these primers on the upcoming piece of Workplace Fairness Legislation into IHRP syllabus, as well as certification.

Mr Chairman, with an ageing population and local workforce growth that is slowing to zero, we need to augment our workforce with either more capital or labour, so that Singapore's economy can continue to maintain its vibrancy.

Without a thriving economy, everyone suffers the adverse consequences of wage stagnation and loss of jobs. But we need to do it carefully to maintain the centrality of a Singaporean Core. That must be our unwavering commitment to our Singaporean workers.

There have been significant moves, especially the COMPASS scheme and the Shortage Occupation List (SOL). Can the Ministry update on how COMPASS has helped to support Singapore's economic needs since its implementation? And how has SOL allowed companies to fill hard-to-fill jobs or roles, so that companies can continue to preserve and create jobs for locals?

Our local workforce has also been improving in quality, with median wages increasing annually. This is also evident among the graduates. Based on the latest Graduate Employment Survey, the median gross monthly salary among fresh graduates in full-time permanent employment increased by 2.7%, to S$4,313 from S$4,200 in 2022. The figure increased by 10.5% between 2021 and 2022.

This also means that we need to ensure that our EP holders must not unduly compete against them because EP holders tend to have more work experience and might be prepared to take a lower pay. How would the Ministry adjust the qualifying salary to balance the needs of our Singaporean Core and business needs?

Chairman, SOL in the COMPASS EP framework offers a pathway to acquire 10 to 20 extra points towards the 40 points required for an EP, beyond the standard metrics, to ease the filling of known skill gaps in our economy with foreign labour. To gauge its effectiveness so far, I would like to ask: (a) what percentage of EP applications, since September 2023, have taken advantage of the bonus points prospective EP applicants receive; (b) has publishing SOL increased the absolute quantity or quality of applications to these occupations compared to pre-COMPASS? What specific SOL jobs continue to lack applications or suitable candidates despite these incentives? Can MOM name these jobs and briefly outline what it thinks could be the root causes of their lacking suitable candidates thus far?

Given that it has been almost six months since COMPASS was introduced, does the Ministry have a view on whether the SOL mechanism is effective as a signal to companies and foreign labour? More importantly, for such identified talent shortages, we should also ensure Singaporeans are trained to fill these gaps.

In view of the wider-ranging announcements made to the SkillsFuture Framework, including the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme, how does the Ministry work with MOE and other agencies, like SkillsFuture, to systematically nudge Singaporeans into these occupations and sectors with training opportunities? We need to ensure that local workforce development is not just reactive but predictive, aligning closely with future industry needs.

Sir, in 2022, Harvard economist Lawrence Katz wrote a paper reviewing four US sectoral employment programmes under the umbrella of Work Advance. These programmes, targeting a mix of US lower-wage workers, high school graduates and young adults, combine training, job placement and support services aiming to transition participants into higher-wage jobs within specific sectors. Sectors were chosen because of local labour market demand and long-term career prospects, for example, healthcare, IT and manufacturing.

The evaluations revealed substantial earning gains of 14% to 38% for participants about a year after training completion, with gains persisting from five to 11 years after participation in the programme. The success of these programmes was attributed to targeted skills training, certifications recognised within the industry, comprehensive wraparound support services, as well as leveraging community-based organisations with deep local knowledge to facilitate recruitment.

In this light, Sir, particularly in view of enhancements to SkillsFuture at this Budget, how does MOM plan to report on the success or otherwise of the initiatives, to improve the employability prospects of the broader Singaporean workforce to fill the strategic gaps in our economy on an ongoing basis?

Chairman, there are many industries in Singapore that are growing and competing for local workforce. SkillsFuture provides the platform for the current workforce to develop the skills required in the economy and WSG supports with assisting the workforce with job placement and career conversion through programmes, such as CCP.

While we strengthen and provide the opportunity for our Singaporean workforce, we must continue to remain open and connected to support economic growth. Can the Minister provide an update on how our foreign workforce policies will continue to support our business needs while ensuring that local workers can continue to compete fairly for good jobs? And while the number of Work Permit holders have rebounded post COVID-19, how does the Government intend to manage the inflow of Work Permit holders, given the resource and infrastructure constraints?

Mr Mark Lee, take your two cuts together.

Chairman, can MOM share insights on which sectors have successfully utilised the Manpower for Strategic Economic Priorities (M-SEP) Scheme and the key lessons and best practices enabling its wider applications?

Furthermore, is there consideration for allowing firms in the M-SEP scheme to gradually increase their foreign worker quota up to 5%, based on exceeding local hiring or training targets within two years, rather than maintaining a fixed threshold?

Finally, might MOM extend the scheme beyond two years for companies that notably advance Singapore's economic goals and invest in local talent, while also adjusting renewal criteria to accommodate the varied growth and development across industries?

Chairman, the current tight labour market highlights the challenges that businesses across the diverse services industry face. This sector includes a wide range of businesses, from modern services, like financial, insurance and infocomm service, to lifestyle services, such as hospitality, retail and food services. It also encompasses transport and storage services, and community, social and personal services.

The unique workforce composition and varied demand and supply dynamics within each sub-sector demonstrate that the existing one-size-fits-all quota system for foreign workers does not adequately address the specific needs of these industries. Given that certain job roles within the services industry consistently struggle to attract local talent, perhaps a more talented approach to managing foreign worker quotas is necessary.

As such, would implementing a sub-sector specific quota system, addressing jobs like heavy vehicle drivers and certified opticians, be a more effective tool in managing manpower needs, ensuring that areas with persistent low take-up rates by Singaporeans receive the necessary support?

Therefore, could the Minister consider initiating a targeted review in selecting sub-sectors of the services' sector, and a nuanced approach can be selected sectors to show overall productivity growth, if given extra manpower?

Sir, the upcoming Workplace Fairness Legislation (WFL) will be important in ensuring that certain groups do not experience discrimination at the workplace. I would like to share views on several key areas.

First, the Tripartite Committee recommended that WFL only cover direct discrimination. This means that workers may still be exposed to indirect discrimination, discrimination-related harassment as well as discrimination by association and perception.

The laws of many countries already prohibit all these forms of discrimination, and the Tripartite Committee's recommendations are inconsistent with our obligations under international law, including Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which require us to prohibit all forms of discrimination.

The Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP), which is meant to run alongside WFL, also do not address the types of discrimination mentioned above. As a first step, will it be made clear that all of these different forms of discrimination are prohibited under the guidelines? Will MOM also commit to a timeline to update WFL to protect Singaporeans from all forms of discrimination at the workplace in the next five years?

On grievance handling, the processes in WFL must be inclusive and accessible to all who may face barriers when seeking redress, whether workers have disabilities or have difficulties navigating a perceived intimidating tribunal system in a language they are not familiar or comfortable with, MOM must pay attention to their particular needs to ensure that they are able to exercise their rights under WFL on an equal basis as others.

This also extends to the mandatory mediation and Employment Claims Tribunal. More needs to be done to ensure that workers who face barriers are able to access justice if they have been discriminated against at the workplace.

The Committee further recommended an expansive approach to prohibit all acts done to victimise an individual who has reported their employer for workplace discrimination. However, are workers protected from retaliation for reporting forms of discrimination that are not prohibited under WFL? Can MOM clarify if the WFL's prohibition against retaliation would also protect employees who report their employers to TAFEP for forms of discrimination that are not prohibited under WFL?

Next, on the gender pay gap, I was disappointed that WFL does not include any mechanism to address this. Other developed economies have taken steps to legislate salary and transparency to address the gender pay gap. I reiterate the WP's manifesto's call, that employers with 10 or more employees should be required to report to MOM the gender pay gap for the same job description. This information must be made publicly available in aggregate form. Only with such publicly available basic data on a regular basis could we have a better idea of the problem and move to close the gender wage gap.

On information to be provided by jobseekers, MOM has accepted the Committee's recommendation to prohibit the use of words or phrases in job advertisements that indicate a preference for a protected characteristic. But we can include the prohibition of asking for other information, such as last drawn salary, relationship and NS PES status. An employer should be exempted from this prohibition only if such information is a genuine and reasonable job requirement, a concept already used in the Committee's final report. The burden should be on the potential employer to explain why such personal information is needed when requesting the information.

Finally, for reasonable accommodation, the Tripartite Committee recommended that this be covered by an advisory instead of legislation. However, many countries already recognise the right to reasonable accommodations and the UN CRPD has also called on Singapore to adopt legal provisions to recognise the denial of reasonable accommodation as a form of discrimination, not just in the employment context, but in all areas of life.

Chairman, the issue of retirement adequacy lies close to the hearts of many Singaporeans.

The recent Forward Singapore initiatives, including the Majulah Package, increased Enhanced Retirement Scheme (ERS) payouts and so forth, are commendable steps towards strengthening retirement adequacy and our social compact. They promise support for seniors who need more help, ensuring greater peace of mind, especially in this inflationary environment. Can the Minister elaborate on how these changes and initiatives translate to tangible benefits for citizens, especially for those who require more support?

Next, the Silver Support Scheme (SSS) continues to play a critical role in ensuring financial support for vulnerable seniors. However, with the rising cost of living, is the current SSS quantum adequate to meet their basic needs and maintain a decent standard of living? Can the Minister elaborate on plans to review and potentially adjust the Scheme's payout to reflect evolving needs?

These policies represent a renewed commitment to a multi-pronged approach involving the Government, families, employers and the wider community. By working together, we can create a supportive ecosystem that empowers our seniors to retire with dignity and security.

Mr Chairman, I had previously asked why the Matched Retirement Savings Scheme (MRSS) did not cover seniors above 70. The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) welcomed the announcement in this year's Budget that these seniors will now be covered by the MRSS. As I discussed in my speech on the Public Finances Motion early this month, the Government likely earns a higher return from investing CPF savings with GIC than the interest rate it pays to Singaporeans. This difference goes into the Reserves, instead of CPF accounts.

The hon Member Mr Louis Chua has pointed out in his Budget Debate speech that, over the years, many MPs from all sides have been urging the Government to let CPF members benefit directly from the higher returns. The PSP shares their views and urges the Government to be transparent about the returns it has earned on investing our CPF savings and find a way to give this back to CPF members. We can adopt a different approach based on age. Younger CPF members with more than 20 years to go before their retirement can take more risk for higher returns. Those who are closer to retirement should lean more towards risk-free returns.

Can the Government consider setting up two options? One for risk-free returns as in the current arrangement and another option which incorporates some risk, like pegging to the GIC's annual investment return or other investment options. Allow younger CPF members who are prepared to take some risk to allocate some of their savings to the latter option, but gradually adjust the proportion allowed downwards with age, so that the portfolio becomes lower-risk as they age. CPF returns can also be raised through the Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme (LRIS), which was recommended by a CPF panel in 2016 and accepted by the Government.

In November 2023, my colleague Mr Leong Mun Wai asked why LRIS has still not been implemented. The Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have since replied on different occasions, that further studies need to be made. But the Government has had almost eight years to study this. I call on the Government to make a decision soon. LRIS can also be implemented in conjunction with my proposal of age-related allocation. The LRIS can be one of the options that takes some risk. The allocation caps can then limit the risk of this option.

Next, I will touch on the closure of the special account for CPF members above age 55. The Minister has said that the closure of the Special Account (SA) is not aimed at saving interest monies. But if the SA savings go to the Ordinary Account (OA) instead of the Retirement Account (RA), the Government can be expected to save on interest payments. What is the amount expected to be saved?

If this is not about saving money, can the Government channel any interest savings towards paying higher interest for those with low balances, for example, by raising the threshold for additional 1% interest from the first $60,000 to the first $100,000, or pegged to the Basic Retirement Sum (BRS)? The PSP notes that the maximum amount that CPF members can keep in their RA will be increased four times the BRS. What is the reason for capping this amount? Why should we stop CPF members from enhancing their retirement adequacy by putting more into their RA if they wish to do so? Does this impose additional cost on the Government? Finally, will the Minister consider adjusting the MediSave annual withdrawal limit every year, in line with healthcare inflation, just like the way BRS is adjusted yearly?

Mr Louis Chua, you can take your two cuts together.

Chairman, I would like to once again take the chance to raise concerns that I had previously voiced out in Parliament over the past three years and also earlier this year, during the debate on our Reserves.

There are already certain financial instruments available for members to invest their CPF balances under the CPF Investment Scheme. However, for the benefit of all Singaporeans' retirement, we need to ensure that the long-delayed LRIS is implemented. As described in a poster explaining the benefits of the LRIS, such a scheme involves low fees, is simple and fuss-free. CPF savings are pooled together with other members to enjoy economies of scale, investments follow a market index and there are fewer choices and less headache over which funds to choose and does not need active management to adjust risk.

Against the backdrop of inflationary pressures and headwinds in the global investment environment, I hope that the Minister will not respond to this cut calling for the LRIS to be implemented as soon as possible, once again, by saying that he will provide updates when ready, but that he is now ready to provide updates.

Chairman, I would like to once again repeat my call for us to reform the long-outdated and archaic formula in which OA interest is computed. This was last changed in 1999, when the ratio of fixed deposits to savings was updated from 50-50 to 80-20, to reflect the longer duration that CPF OA monies remained with CPF Board. A reform is a long due.

As shared by the Monetary Authority of Singapore in its reply to my Parliamentary Question, deposit rates are set competitively in the market. Apart from basic savings accounts, consumers can choose from a range of other savings and fixed deposit products with higher interest rates offered by banks. Yet, despite much higher market rates for both fixed deposits and savings deposits, the CPF deems the level of deposit interest rates to be an unbelievable 0.66% for the period from August 2023 to October 2023. The least we can do is to reflect prevailing rates in the market. I hope the Government will proactively review CPF interest rates to ensure their relevance in the prevailing operating environment.

Mr Desmond Choo, you can take your two cuts together.

Mr Chairman, the recent announcement of the closing of the Special Account (SA) for CPF members above the age of 55 years old has generated much discussion. This is not surprising because of how central CPF savings are in providing for retirement adequacy. A key factor contributing to its effectiveness is the provision of high and risk-free interest rates on CPF monies.

With CPF contributions earning up to 4.08% per annum on the SA, Singaporeans benefit from a secure avenue for retirement adequacy. In a world of financial uncertainty, the CPF scheme offers guaranteed tangible benefits to every Singaporean and bolstering our economic resilience. This is also testament to the effectiveness of the CPF system.

Could the Ministry shed more light on why it is timely to make this policy move to close the SA now? How many CPF members will be affected by this closure? And how many CPF members would benefit from the raising of the ERS?

During my recent house visit, a Tampines resident shared with me that it was logical to earn fixed deposit rates. The money should be naturally locked up for longer and not withdrawn easily, as in a savings account. However, she was concerned about what her options are, going forward, if she exceeds the enhanced retirement sum. It is understandable that residents would want to maximise their retirement monies, especially as we are likely to be in a higher inflation rate but slower growth environment for quite some time. Can the Ministry provide more information on its website or other channels on the options that residents could explore if they wanted to get more than the 2.5% from the OA?

The Majulah Package will benefit our lower- to middle-income young seniors. Together with the Pioneer and Merdeka Generation Packages, it provides for a robust social compact. It is also very good news for caregivers and homemakers, who prioritise the well-being of their loved ones at the expense of putting off their careers. While the Earn and Save Bonus component of the Majulah Package offers support to eligible working caregivers, there remain concerns for those who have not been working or of low income.

First, for the lower income, would the Package allow them to achieve basic retirement adequacy by the time they retire? Second, for those who are not working, such as homemakers and caregivers, without the Earn and Save component, achieving retirement adequacy would appear to be more difficult.

I have two suggestions for the Ministry to consider. First, for the lower-income employed residents: to provide a higher quantum of top-ups so that they can achieve the BRS. The current way of topping up or supporting such residents is via ComCare or other forms of social assistance. Topping up via work can preserve work ethics and the dignity of work. Second, for homemakers and caregivers: to expand upon the quantum of matched retirement savings, so that employers and family members can help them to reach BRS. The current limit is up to $600 top-up per year. This would likely not be enough, especially for those who have been homemakers or caregivers for most of their working lives.

Such earned or matched top-ups are also aligned with our social compact. Those who have contributed and needed help would be helped by those with more. It also acknowledges the value of unpaid labour and provides them with enhanced financial security in retirement.

Chairman, the Home Protection Scheme (HPS) serves as a crucial safety net for Singaporean families, ensuring they can continue to reside in their Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats even if they were to lose income earning capacity due to unforeseen circumstances. HPS should go beyond the standards set by private mortgage insurers.

In the past three years, about 1.2% of HPS applications were not approved due to serious pre-existing medical conditions. We must expand HPS to ensure that most Singaporeans, including PwD breadwinners with a track record of employment, have access to comprehensive protection of their most precious asset – their home. Could MOM consider reviewing the HPS risk assessment framework so that more in-need families, who cannot turn to private insurers, get the coverage they need? After all, we are talking about public housing, not private properties.

Sir, foreign domestic workers (FDWs) deserve to be protected. They live in their employers' homes and are potentially vulnerable to ill-treatment and abuse behind closed doors. Employers who ill-treat their workers must be punished in accordance with the law. On the other hand, some complaints are unfounded. Some employers have been victims of frivolous complaints.

Let me just take one scenario. After the worker has successfully entered Singapore at the cost of an employer, the worker makes a complaint in the hope of changing employers or a desire to return home. Based on the accounts of some employers who have been subject to investigations, they did not know what to expect of the protocol or procedures to be adopted. The investigations could take weeks or months, during which, the employer's eligibility to hire a replacement helper would be suspended, disrupting household arrangements. In other cases, the decision may be made to take no further action against the employer. Nevertheless, an advisory might be issued to the employer not to commit offences in the future. This could happen even when the employer was never interviewed by the investigators. How does MOM balance the need to safeguard workers' welfare and, at the same time, ensure that investigations are efficient and employers are accorded due process? Will advisories serve as adverse records against employers if they wish to hire other helpers in the future?

Currently, under the Child Development and Co-Savings Act, working parents are eligible for up to six days of paid childcare leave a year. While I suspect that many parents find this insufficient, especially if they have multiple children, each with unique contingencies that could keep them out of school, I wish to speak about how there remains a symmetry between childcare and eldercare leave.

As our demographics evolve and ever more children find themselves providing care to elderly parents, they find that there is no equivalent support for them as they ferry their parents to and from medical and related care appointments. This is especially trying for those who are an only child of single children living with their elderly parents, who generally default into the role of being the primary caregiver.

This has, unsurprisingly, resulted in caregiving employees facing depression and reduced quality of life, as shown in a 2021 Duke-NUS study. And this is disproportionately borne by women, as revealed in a 2019 report published by the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE).

While Civil Servants have two days of parental care leave, a benefit that half of the Service exercises and an average of taking both days, there is no equivalent entitlement for the private sector. Some employers have been willing to voluntarily offer such leave, but the share is trifling, at just 13%.

I propose an expansion of family care leave. This is an idea that has bipartisan support. Member Mr Louis Ng has tirelessly advocated for paid parent care leave and, if I heard correctly, as has Mr Desmond Choo just now, and so has my former colleague Mr Leon Perera.

As a start, we can include two days of paid leave for the only child of aged parents as well as singles living with their elderly parents. While it may seem like an additional cost for businesses, the resulting improvement in economic security and well-being of these employees is more than likely to pay for itself in terms of elevated productivity and reduced turnover.

Sir, the number of women aged 40 to 59 in the labour force has risen by 97,000 from 2012 to 2022. Many in this group of workers will be undergoing perimenopause, which can present various physical and emotional challenges that may impact their well-being and work performance.

Awareness of the health-related impact of perimenopause on women's well-being does not seem be widespread in Singapore. The Straits Times, in a piece titled, "Is Singapore ready for menopause wave from a super ageing society?", interviewed women who quit their jobs or suffered through the pain at work. This loss of productivity may ultimately be costly to businesses and the economy, not to mention the human toll it takes on female workers. Based on a National University Hospital (NUH) study and extrapolating for the current mid-life working population, as many as 388,800 women may be bearing the ill-effects of perimenopause at work

It is important for employers to recognise and accommodate these changes and foster a supportive work environment that addresses the unique needs of these women. It is notable that the United Kingdom (UK) and Australian Parliaments have convened Member of Parliament-led consultations to raise awareness nationally.

In Singapore, we can start with incentives for women who turn 45 to seek pre-emptive check-ups and for those who need physiotherapy for their joint and muscle pain to either subsidise the treatment or give them time-off for it. If women are forced to cut short their working life during their menopause transition, their health and finances may worsen and our economy will lose out on their valuable contributions. This scenario is entirely preventable.

Given that women traditionally take on the brunt of caregiving duties at home and that there are some 260,000 women of economic age not in the workforce, more must be done to support women workers to stay or return to the workplace. The implementation of FWAs is critical in this support and we see tailwinds with the adoption of the tripartite standards for FWAs and the upcoming Tripartite Guidelines for FWA requests. However, a multifaceted approach is needed.

Would the Ministry consider the provision of more caregiving leave to support our workers in an ageing Singapore and can the coverage of existing leave policies be expanded to include a wider range of family members requiring care? Will there also be additional support for women returners in the form of more paid training support to ensure a smooth transition back to the workforce?

Chairman, many caregivers seek employment to cover expenses for dependents, like individuals with disabilities or seniors, often needing jobs with FWAs due to caregiving demands. In exchange for greater flexibility in schedule, caregivers sometimes settle for low-paying roles that may not match their education levels or skills.

The financial strain of caregiving can be great, especially if they have had to quit their jobs or reduce their working hours to be a caregiver. This problem is particularly pronounced where the caregivers are single. May I ask, what employment support will be made available to caregivers to PWDs and seniors? And for caregivers who are single, whether there is additional support for them?

FWAs have become a key consideration for caregivers and senior workers deciding to stay or return to the workplace. It is arguably also a rising consideration for younger workers who choose to work flexibly so as to pursue side gigs and taking on higher degrees. As more employers embrace FWAs and as the dust settles on the implementation and proliferation of FWAs, it is important that fair workplace norms be created in the support of win-win employer-employee outcomes.

Employers must see productivity gains in the introduction of FWAs and employees must be fairly assessed and treated when it comes to performance appraisals, work assignments and their requests for FWAs. Beyond acceding to more family care and caregiving leave, which may prove to be untenable in the longer run, employers see FWAs as a more sustainable way to support their workers.

However, it is important that for true sustainability, FWAs be rolled out in planned, managed ways so that productivity is not impacted and trust continues to be built between employers and their workers. To this end, what will the Ministry be doing to further equip and support our companies in the redesign of their job roles and in the re-engineering of their work cultures?

Some companies have also expressed their concerns as service providers in third-party outsourcing business sectors, such as cleaning and security. They have shared that while they hope to implement FWAs in their industries, which faces manpower crunches, service buyers may continue to stick with more traditional contracts that are not outcomes-based. How will the Ministry be promoting and closing this gap as we move towards FWAs as a nation and economy?

Indeed, the need for job redesign is critical in the role of FWAs to fair worker outcomes. The Women and Family Unit of the NTUC has been advocating for FWAs, long before COVID-19. In the earlier days, some industries have pushed back citing reasons that the nature of their job types make FWAs untenable. This includes jobs in healthcare, services and manufacturing.

However, FWAs are not only about work-from-home. They too include part-time work, doing remote work from a regional office and flexible hours. I am glad to note that post-COVID-19, our Healthcare Services Employees Union have partaken in a pilot to introduce flexible loads and flexible timing for our healthcare frontliners in hospitals.

In the wide-scale introduction of FWAs, how will the Ministry encourage more sectors to roll out FWAs creatively and fairly? In an introduction of the upcoming Tripartite Guidelines for FWA requests, what measures will the Ministry take to guard against employers rejecting without fair and proper consideration on employees, rejecting requests for FWAs citing business reasons?

Chairman, as Singapore's population continues to age and birth rates decline, it has become increasingly important to support the physical and financial independence of our seniors in order to ease the economic burden on the workforce.