National Council of Social Service (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker: Minister Masagos.

1.33 pm

The Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mr Speaker, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The National Council of Social Service (NCSS) plays a vital role in Singapore's social service sector, driving better outcomes for those who need support.

Communities coming together to support those in need have always existed. In the early Independence years, the social service sector was primarily made up of many small voluntary groups, each doing their best with limited resources. To coordinate and bring together these groups, NCSS' predecessor, the Singapore Council of Social Service (SCSS) was formed in 1958. By 1992, rapid economic growth brought new social challenges. To take on a more strategic and proactive role in welfare planning and provision, SCSS was restructured to become NCSS, serving as a Statutory Board and membership body.

Today, social needs are more complex and cut across multiple domains such as economic and health. Greater coordination and collaboration are needed across the sector. To more holistically support those they serve, social service agencies (SSAs) have expanded beyond addressing singular causes. The broader ecosystem supporting social services has also expanded. While SSAs remain our sector's backbone, we now have more stakeholders such as social enterprises, corporates and philanthropic organisations.

In response to these shifts, the Government and NCSS have been partnering more closely over the years to support the sector, playing distinct yet complementary roles.

The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) leads the development of social policies, rolls out nationwide initiatives and performs key statutory functions. For example, MSF has stepped up in developing, managing and co-funding a range of social services, such as family services, to raise their quality and accessibility. In addition, MSF's funding for social service programmes has doubled in the last decade from $172 million dollars in financial year (FY)2014 to $346 million dollars in FY2024. NCSS has taken a larger role as sector developer to strengthen social service delivery, build organisational and professional capabilities and develop the social service ecosystem.

To ensure that NCSS is adequately resourced to fulfil this expanded role, the Government has progressively increased its funding over the years, particularly by providing full funding for NCSS' core functions since 2022. This has enabled NCSS to invest in building the sector's longer-term capabilities.

To share some examples: NCSS set up the Community Capability Trust in 2020 to strengthen the organisations that deliver services, including helping SSAs adopt digital technologies that improve the quality and efficiency of their services.

NCSS has also introduced various initiatives to develop the people that deliver our services. The Social Service Institute (SSI) operates as the sector's main continuing education and training centre to upskill social service professionals.

NCSS also supports the sector in talent attraction and retention through programmes like Sun Ray, to develop sector leadership.

NCSS published the Sustainable Philanthropy Framework and Guidelines for Social Impact Metrics in 2024 and 2025 respectively, to encourage long-term corporate philanthropy and support businesses in measuring their social impact. In tandem with the Sector Evaluation Framework launched by NCSS in 2022, the sector now has a common language to measure the impact of services. This enables providers and funders to deliver better outcomes for service users.

Mr Speaker, the NCSS Act which empowers NCSS to carry out its role has remained largely unchanged since it was enacted in 1992. Given the significant shifts in our social service landscape, MSF and NCSS reviewed how NCSS should be best positioned to continue serving the sector effectively. This Bill is the result of that review and reflects both NCSS' and the sector's proposals.

To shape this Bill, we conducted extensive engagements with about 300 NCSS member organisations and members of the public. I thank all who gave their views and ideas. Your feedback has helped us better understand the sector's needs and aspirations, and has been instrumental in shaping the current proposed amendments.

I will now share the key provisions in the Bill, which can be grouped into four key areas. First, to reflect NCSS' role as sector developer. Second, to introduce a streamlined sector membership framework. Third, to strengthen the Council, the Community Chest (ComChest) and NCSS' committees. And fourth, to update and align the Act with those of other Statutory Boards.

The first key area relates to refreshing NCSS' objectives, functions and powers. NCSS has responded to shifts in the landscape and expanded to become a sector developer for the social service sector.

NCSS does so in three important ways which are articulated as NCSS' core objectives in the Bill. First, strengthening social service delivery. Second, building the capability of sector stakeholders. And third, developing the broader social service ecosystem. Clause 6 reflects this by inserting a new section 11 on objectives and functions of Council and section 12 on powers of Council. It also gives NCSS clear functions and powers to pursue these objectives.

The updated scope of NCSS' objectives and functions also clarifies its mandate to develop the wider social service sector, beyond focusing on specific stakeholders. Allow me to elaborate how NCSS' work will reflect this.

First, in terms of strengthening social service delivery. The social service sector exists to improve the lives of persons with social needs. NCSS will monitor service users' progress and make data available to the sector. This is important so that we have a feedback mechanism for service providers, funders and philanthropic organisations to improve the outcomes for service users and increase their social impact.

NCSS will also collect and use data to identify emerging needs and to allocate resources to services that address critical and unmet needs. For instance, NCSS launched the Disability and Inclusion Panel Study in 2022 to understand the experiences and needs of persons with disabilities and their caregivers, which informs Singapore's broader strategy for disability inclusion.

Second, in terms of building the sector's capabilities. NCSS will ramp up existing efforts to develop the sector's organisational and professional capabilities such as enhancing the Organisational Health Framework for Social Services. This will enable service providers to identify their strengths and areas for development, so that they are better able to deliver services. NCSS will also drive efforts to better harness volunteers and technology in the sector, enabling service providers to innovate, expand their outreach and improve services.

Third, in developing the broader social service ecosystem. In the spirit of "we first", NCSS will ramp up efforts to encourage those who are able to contribute their time, talent, treasure, testimonies and ties to uplift communities in need. NCSS will pilot new ideas and technologies, and develop new partnerships with stakeholders such as social enterprises and the private sector. For example, NCSS has embarked on a pilot with private providers to explore new ways of delivering counselling and make services more accessible. Another example is the Social Changemaker Series, where NCSS will bring together corporates and SSAs to co-develop solutions to address needs in the sector.

These efforts to meet the needs of service users and improve their quality of life are at the heart of NCSS' work.

The second area introduces a streamlined sector membership framework. Membership has been central to NCSS since its early years as SCSS, when it brought different agencies in our sector together. Through our engagements, many member organisations have told us that membership remains of sentimental and practical value as a platform for networking and community-building.

Today, NCSS has three types of membership for organisations in the sector, "Full", "Associate" and "Honorary" membership.

With the change in NCSS' constitution, clause 10 introduces sector membership, a single-tier membership framework for organisations in the sector to complement NCSS' sector developer role. Organisations whose primary function is to provide a social service in Singapore or to directly support the provision of a social service in Singapore may apply to become a sector member.

By social service, our intent is to especially cover interventions or programmes that improve the welfare of vulnerable or disadvantaged persons in Singapore, or support the emotional and psychological well-being of the local community. For instance, this would include services such as family counselling and financial assistance.

We also took in feedback that organisations whose primary purpose is to directly support the provision of a social service are important players and should be able to apply for sector membership. This includes professional bodies for social service professionals; organisations that mobilise resources for social service providers or service users; and organisations providing capability building to social service providers.

An organisation's eligibility for sector membership will be assessed based on a range of factors, including what it states as its objects and how it carries out its activities. Member organisations are charged nominal membership fees today. However, fees will not be charged for sector membership.

With these changes, the current membership base will be rationalised and supported in their transition. Most member organisations will experience minimal impact to their day-to-day membership experience. All Full Council members, who make up the majority of NCSS' membership today, will be transitioned to become sector members. This is because the current criteria for Full Council members aligns with that of sector membership.

NCSS will ease the transition for all other current Council members. This includes honouring all existing funding support until the expiry of the support.

As sector developer, NCSS will also continue to engage and support stakeholders in the wider ecosystem, beyond sector members alone. NCSS' priority is to deliver better outcomes for service users rather than to focus on an organisation's sector membership status, type or size. MSF and NCSS will continue to keep open channels and engagement platforms to hear from the wider sector. NCSS' grants or other support will also be accessible to agencies whose work aligns with NCSS' priorities, even if they are not sector members.

The third key area focuses on strengthening the Council and its committees. As NCSS' responsibilities expand, we must ensure that the Council is fit-for-purpose and understands the sector's needs, to provide effective governance and lead NCSS and the sector through the fast-changing landscape.

In line with other Statutory Boards playing a sector developer role, clause 5 provides that NCSS will be constituted and governed by its Council, headed by a Chairperson.

Clause 5 also introduces amendments to broaden representation on the Council, through a Council appointed by the Minister and widened pool of eligible candidates. Today, excluding the President, half of the NCSS Board is elected by member organisations. We want to ensure that the sector's diversity, vibrancy and voice is reflected in the Council, and it possesses an optimal mix of skills, experience and knowledge to guide NCSS' work. A fully-appointed Council, with nominations from sector members, will enable us to achieve this.

To this end, we will move away from the current restrictions applicable to the NCSS Board and allow employees of sector members to sit on the Council. The practical, operational and programmatic expertise of senior management of sector members will complement the governance perspectives that other Council members can provide.

I would like to assure Members that at least half of the Council, excluding the Chairperson, will be appointed from individuals nominated by sector members. So, putting aside the Chairperson, it will always be at least half from sector nominees. For example, if there are 10 Council members appointed from sector members' nominations, the Minister will appoint at most 10 other Council members, as well as the Chairperson. This is similar to today's practice, where about half of the NCSS Board consists of individuals elected by NCSS member organisations, as earlier mentioned.

Sector members will be invited to submit one nominee each, who must be from their organisation at the point of appointment onto the Council, as a potential Council candidate. The NCSS Chairperson, operationally assisted by a Nominations Committee comprising respected sector leaders, will submit the full list of eligible nominations to the Minister for consideration. These changes are important as NCSS plays a critical role in the sector, as a fully funded Statutory Board with expanded objects, functions and powers as sector developer.

The Council will comprise a maximum of 27 members and a minimum of 15, with a maximum term of three years. Today, the NCSS Act provides for a Board of 23 members, with a maximum term of two years. By providing for a range in the Council size, we will have greater flexibility in determining the optimal Council size for each term, informed by the sector's needs. For the incoming Council in 2026, we intend to maintain a Council size comparable to today's Board. This will allow us to balance both diversity on the Council and agility in the NCSS' decision-making.

By setting the maximum Council term at three years, Council members will have a longer runway to contribute meaningfully to NCSS' work. Council members may also be re-appointed, subject to the Public Service Division's (PSD's) guidelines that apply to Statutory Boards.

Along with the amendments to NCSS' committees, we will also refresh the functions of ComChest, which serves as NCSS' philanthropic and engagement arm. Clause 7 provides that ComChest's role extends beyond fundraising to include mobilising other resources, such as volunteers.

Finally, we have also taken this opportunity to update the NCSS Act in line with current legislation for other Statutory Boards with similar functions. This includes modernising the language and structure of the Act, such as updating the financial provisions, strengthening clauses relating to the governance of the Council, ComChest and NCSS' committees to maintain high standards of conduct; providing for Council members to be paid an honorarium in line with the PSD's guidelines; and reclassifying NCSS as a Group 1A public body in the First Schedule to the Public Sector (Governance) Act 2018, similar to other Statutory Boards that play sector developer roles.

Mr Speaker, let me conclude. The work of the social service sector directly impacts the lives of our citizens, especially those in need. The social service sector has always been driven by its strong sense of purpose. This is a strong foundation for us to build upon.

As our sector faces increasingly complex social needs, our policies and institutions must continue to strengthen, support and transform the sector so that we not only meet the needs of today, but are prepared for what lies ahead. To build a future-ready sector, we will continue to take a strengths-based approach, be proactive to address problems upstream and adopt a whole-of-society approach.

The Government cannot do all this alone. Even with increased Government involvement, we need the continued partnership of our sector and community to support those in need. NCSS has played an instrumental role in sustaining this ethos, including by rallying the community to give their time, talent and treasure back to society. NCSS' efforts empower stakeholders from the sector and wider community to play their part, contributing to our "we first" society. The enhancements in this Bill will further position NCSS to carry out this role.

This Bill reflects MSF and NCSS' shared commitment to building a strong and future-ready social service sector, supported by a compassionate and giving society. Mr Speaker, I seek to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan.

1.55 pm

Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong Central): Sir, let me first declare that I am working in a philanthropic organisation that is an associate member of NCSS.

I stand in support of this Bill. The Social and Family Development Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) also strongly supports this Bill. A number of GPC Members and other colleagues from the People's Action Party (PAP) will be speaking on this Bill, contributing their views and suggestions.

What is most noteworthy is that almost all of the Members speaking are involved in some way in the social service sector themselves. Some, in particular, are running, or have run, SSAs or social enterprises, for years. Members like Ms Denise Phua, our sector veteran or, as we would called it, one of the old OGs. Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim, Ms Elysa Chen and Mr Cai Yinzhou have been in the trenches, and have a ringside view of working with and alongside NCSS. They will be sharing their views on what ought to be NCSS' development priorities as a sector developer.

But more generally, all Members speaking on this Bill speak with a deep understanding of the sector and from a diversity of perspectives. I am thus looking forward to a very substantive and constructive debate, which can only strengthen this Bill, NCSS and ultimately, the sector.

The debate will focus on a few key themes.

First, the new Council appointment regime. This is the part of the Bill that represents the most significant change from current practice for the sector. The Board sets the direction for NCSS and by extension, the sector. The new appointment framework must therefore produce Boards that will continue to serve the sector well and reflect the diversity of the sector well. Ms Lee Hui Ying, Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim, Ms Elysa Chen, Mr David Hoe, Mr Cai Yinzhou, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Melvin Yong will all address this issue in their speeches.

Second, compliance burden, especially for smaller member organisations. Ms Denise Phua, Mr David Hoe and Dr Hamid Razak will touch on this in their speeches.

Third, the overall outcomes, impact and NCSS' measures of success going forward. Ms Elysa Chen, Mr David Hoe and Mr Yip Hon Weng will be speaking on this aspect.

And finally, on the sector workforce and the heart-work that they do, every day, for every case, every client. Dr Wan Rizal, our labour Member of Parliament (MP), will dive deep into this topic and cover workforce development, wages and welfare. Mr Melvin Yong, also our labour MP, will also raise a point on sector wages, while Ms Lee Hui Ying will touch on workers' welfare and well-being in the sector.

Beyond the substance of the debate on this Bill, let me conclude by making a point on the process that has undergirded this Bill. And here, I wish to commend NCSS and MSF, for undertaking a really thorough and extensive consultation process with the sector and stakeholders. NCSS has not only listened to the sector but also responded to the feedback by actually making meaningful, substantive changes to the draft Bill. The best example of this is NCSS' decision to expand the range of the Board size after consultation with the sector.

NCSS has demonstrated, through its consultation process for this Bill, the very spirit of collaboration and partnership with the sector that it says underpins this Bill. May this ethos of collaboration and partnership with the sector, in all its diversity, continue to animate NCSS, as it presses on to build a future-ready and sustainable social service sector, with the sector, to improve the lives of Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker: Prof Kenneth Poon.

2.00 pm

Prof Kenneth Poon (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak in support of the NCSS (Amendment) Bill. Before I continue, I wish to declare interest in this matter, as I currently serve on the NCSS Board of Council and on the board of one of the SSAs.

Over the past two decades, I have served in various capacities, as a volunteer, committee or board member, of several SSAs. From that vantage point, I have seen the sector, as Minister said, change in a fundamental way. The social service sector today is no longer simply a collection of charities and societies, but rather, a complex set of interdependent systems across social service provision, workforce development and cross-agency collaboration.

As the quality of social service provision improves, coordination becomes even more essential, and this happens amidst a tight labour market, which places increasing strain on sector-wide talent pipelines. At the same time, COVID-19 and rapid technological advances have reshaped how services are delivered and how different generations of users engage with support. These changes reflected, for example, in the NCSS' Quality of Life studies, have real consequences for individuals, for families and caregivers who rely on the social service system.

I would like to comment on two aspects of the Bill and seek clarifications on one of the provisions.

First, the expanded role of NCSS as a sector developer. As Minister outlined earlier, NCSS today does more than convening or funding agencies. It identifies gaps in the system, such as the recent focus on behavioural addictions and it mobilises capacity, funding and partnerships to address them. It also leads sector-wide efforts in organisational development and digital transformation, so that agencies can continue to deliver services effectively and at scale.

Initiatives, such as the Sun Ray scheme, have also strengthened workforce pipelines by bringing much needed experienced professionals from diverse backgrounds into the sector, whilst campaigns to support volunteerism and philanthropy help sustain community participation. These amendments recognise and formalise this expanded role.

Second, the governance of NCSS through its Council, which is what the board is termed after proposed amendments. As NCSS takes on an increased role in charting sectoral priorities, building workforce pipelines and in fostering long-term partnerships, effective stewardship requires both expertise as well as continuity. While solutions may appear clear on the surface, the stewardship of such a complex ecosystem requires broad expertise and deep insight into the sector's many constituents and service users. The changes in who and how the Council is appointed, strengthens the Council so that it can work hand-in-glove with the NCSS management in setting strategic directions, exercising oversight and providing the stability needed to see these efforts through in the longer term.

Third, the proposed size of the NCSS Council. Section 5, sub-section 1 provides for the number of Council members to range from 15 to 27. That is compared with a previous upper limit of 23. Given the increasing complexity of responsibilities within NCSS, I would appreciate some clarification on the rationale for providing this wider range. In particular, it will be helpful to understand the circumstances under which such a larger Council would be required and how these flexibilities are intended to support effective representation, expertise and governance of a more complex sector.

This clarification notwithstanding, it is my view that the NCSS (Amendment) Bill better reflects the reality of what NCSS is responsible for – by strengthening the Council and aligning its governance with these expanded responsibilities. The Bill enhances NCSS' capacity to provide stable and capable stewardship of a complex and evolving social service system, and very importantly, in the interest of individuals and families that benefit from it.

Mr Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.

2.07 pm

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Speaker, Sir, I rise to state my support for the Bill. I declare I am an active volunteer in the disability sector for more than 25 years and I currently chair two large autism charities, both are NCSS members, and I help to supervise services from early intervention to special schools to services for adults.

In my job as Mayor of Central District Community Development Council (CDC), my team and I also partner many from the people, public and private sectors. We work with agencies and donors to support families in need, especially those living in rental flats. We also work with hundreds of organisations, including corporates and foundations, to raise disability awareness and dignity, through example, The Purple Parade movement and The Purple Symphony orchestra. And NCSS is one of our key partners.

Over the years, I have seen first-hand the good work of the NCSS and its partnership-oriented approach across different generations of leadership – Ms Anita Fam, Mr Hsieh Fu Hua, Ms Ang Bee Lian, Ms Tan Li San – and many more.

What has historically distinguished NCSS is just the policies it advanced or the funds that it administered, but its ethos as a membership-based organisation. NCSS had for years worked with agencies, then known as voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) and now SSAs, they work with them, rather than over them. NCSS recognised that effective social service delivery depends not just on structures and systems and power and hierarchy, but also on trust: trust of character and competence, professional judgement, morale and sustained relationships on the ground.

This context matters, because the Bill before us marks a clear institutional evolution. The NCSS (Amendment) Bill formally expands NCSS' statutory functions as a system steward of the social service sector. I support this direction.

Our social service ecosystem today is far more complex than when the principal Act was first enacted three decades ago. The landscape is shaped by an ageing population, rising mental health needs, greater diversity amongst vulnerable groups, post-school cliff effects faced by the disabled adults, technological impact and higher expectations for accountability and outcomes.

In such an environment, a stronger and better-coordinated sector is not an option, it is a necessity. And this Bill recognises that reality, and for that, I welcome the Bill. However, as NCSS assumes a more formalised system-steward developer role, it becomes even more important that institutional strengthening does not dilute the partnership-driven ethos and culture that NCSS is known for.

It is from this perspective that I will highlight both the strengths of the Bill and several areas that merit careful attention.

First, on three key positives of this Bill.

One, clearer mandate and stronger governance. Sir, clause 6 of the Bill replaces sections 6 to 12 of the Act and introduces a new section 11 that sets out an updated set of objectives and functions of the Council. These reflect and strengthen the role of the Council as sector developer for the social service sector.

It gives statutory clarity to the Council's role as a strategic sector developer, beyond that of a convenor or a grant administrator. The Bill expressly provides for functions such as advising Government, coordinating social service provision, setting standards, building sector capability, mobilising resources and supporting the implementation of national social policy. This clarity matters. It provides legitimacy for NCSS to act across boundaries and also provides a stronger governance basis for it to steward the sector responsibly and strategically. So, that is good.

Key positive two: stronger coordination and long-term system stewardship. The Bill also enables NCSS to better address cross-cutting needs that spans agencies and life stages, and to reduce fragmentation within the sector. Over time, stronger coordination can help minimise duplication, close service gaps and create clearer and more navigable service pathways, especially for individuals and families who require support from multiple touchpoints. In this regard, the Bill can move the sector towards a more integrated and user-centered system.

The third key positive: strengthened capability development and data-informed practice. Sir, the Bill further strengthens NCSS' mandate in workforce and organisational capability development. This includes training and professional development, development of specialised skills, leadership and talent pipelines. The Bill also clarifies the Council's role in collecting, analysing and using sector-wide data for planning, evaluation and research, building on improved digital and data capabilities.

Taken together, these provisions support a more capable, evidence-informed sector – one that is better equipped to adapt, to learn and to respond to evolving social needs in a sustainable way, and I applaud these directions and recognise the value that they bring to a more complex and demanding social service environment. But the very strengthening of Council's statutory role also raises important questions of balance, boundaries and execution. As we strengthen the system, we must not build this safety net with the chains that bind the very hands that weave it. It is to these considerations that I now turn.

Sir, I would like to next raise four areas of concern and some of the implementation risk.

Concern number one: risk of over-centralisation. A stronger NCSS can improve coherence coordination, but if it is not carefully calibrated, it may also lead to unintended over-centralisation of decision-making, resources and influence. This will not bode well for the sector. For larger SSAs, closer alignment to NCSS frameworks may result in a greater emphasis on compliance over innovation, increased risk aversion and also growing bureaucratic overheads.

I recall an instance where, sometime back, in submitting a tender for a facility for one of our charities, my team and I were required to comply with the norms and specifications that were decades old. We were a bit stuck because non-compliance would render our tender ineligible, yet compliance would constrain our ability to innovate or pilot new models. This illustrates how rigid requirements and compliance can sometimes discourage innovation and progress.

For smaller SSAs, stronger NCSS stewardship can bring benefits, such as access to shared services and professionalisation; and the Sun Ray Scheme, that many spoke about. However, uniform standards often assume an administrative scale that sometimes, smaller agencies simply do not have. This may result in disproportionate compliance burdens, pressure to conform to standardised templates and reduced responsiveness to local community realities. The risk, therefore, is over-uniformity due to over-centralisation.

Concern number two: rising compliance and administrative burdens. The Bill's strengthened governance and data obligations may increase reporting, audits and evaluation requirements. Today, funders and donors rightly expect outputs and outcomes; not to mention impact, the latest buzzword. Impact, which is the latest ambitious expectation. Some of these measures are often difficult to attribute, to isolate and to track meaningfully, especially in complex social settings.

Accountability is necessary, but it is not cost-free. From experience, the charities I serve already incur significant expenditures on internal audits and external audits, procurement systems and compliance processes – costs that involve not just financial outlays, but also substantial manpower and administrative effort.

Many SSAs are already operating under severe manpower constraints, high caseloads, burnout and staff turnover. Compounding this, many of these compliance costs must be supported through donor funds, and we know that many donors are often reluctant to fund overheads and want to fund only direct service costs.

It is, therefore, important that in strengthening governance, we recognise the true cost of accountability and compliance, and avoid adding unnecessary administrative strain that will divert energy away from frontline service delivery. This caution applies not only to administrators in the social service sector, but also across the health, ageing and special education domains.

Concern three: safeguarding diversity and innovation. Many of Singapore's most impactful social interventions began as small, ground-up initiatives. Pathlight School, which I co-founded, started that way. Started by volunteers, professionals who are professionals and also parents. We started only with 41 students, and thanks to the Ministry of Education, NCSS and SG Enable, it is now a large and popular school serving thousands.

Happee Hearts Movement, started by Dr Chen Shi Lin, started modestly and is still that way, but nimble. So is Helping Joy – I think they are featured in the newspapers these days – started by Steven Goh, to help clear hoarding homes and thankfully, also a partner of Central Singapore CDC. Both Dr Chen and Mr Goh are nominees for the Singaporean of the Year Award.

If agencies, such as NCSS' expanded statutory powers, unintentionally privilege scale, maturity or compliance over proximity and trust, we risk losing such grassroots energy, and cultural and linguistic diversity, and high-touch relational approaches. And missing contributors, such as Dr Chen and Mr Goh.

Over time, if we are not careful, agencies may default to policy-safe, standardised interventions, rather than develop innovative models to respond to emerging needs. And therefore, a healthy social service ecosystem requires not only strong institutions, but also space for diversity, for dissent and experimentation; without compromising quality and due diligence.

Concern number four: system sensing, how NCSS will identify emerging gaps. A stronger mandate and better data capabilities do not automatically translate into better system intelligence. The social service landscape spans multiple vulnerable groups with overlapping, evolving and often invisible needs. Many critical gaps surface first through frontline practitioners, caregivers, volunteers and even small niche organisations – long before they appear in formal data sets.

The key question, therefore, is, how will NCSS know, early and hopefully, accurately, where these urgent gaps lie, particularly when needs are localised, emergent or poorly captured by existing reporting frameworks? And how will it know who to trust, in character and competence to work with? So, a system steward, like NCSS, must, therefore, be designed not only to coordinate, but to listen deeply, sense early and respond proportionately.

And next, on clarifying NCSS' role within the broader care ecosystem. Sir, the four concerns I raise lead naturally to questions about role clarity. Singapore's care ecosystem today is complex. It is organised along different population and service domains. For instance, those of us, as MPs, would know, seniors' services are largely coordinated by the Agency for Integrated Care under MOH; then, disability services are supported by SG Enable and MSF's Disability Office; family services and social service offices fall under MSF; and then, recently, I just heard, volunteer mobilisation, now, it is not just by NCSS, but it is also previously by National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre (NVPC) and the Prime Minister also just instructed the CDCs to look at increasing volunteers.

With this Bill strengthening the Council's functions in coordination, capability development, data use and system stewardship, there needs to be clarity on how these roles and agencies intersect. I think there will be overlaps, but the overlaps with existing lead agencies must be addressed in practice, especially in areas, such as needs assessment, service planning, capability development and data reporting.

Beyond relying on nominated Board members and occasional meetings of members, there should be, in NCSS, a systemic and structured platform to sense, identify, prioritise, plan, coordinate and resource the critical gaps with the other agencies, across the sector for both existing and emerging gaps.

And with that, I have three questions for the Minister, for clarification.

The first is to do with governance and innovation. How will the Bill be implemented to ensure that stronger governance and funding relationships do not inadvertently encourage compliance-driven behaviour, stifle innovation or add unnecessary layers of bureaucracy within the social service sector?

My second question is about proportionate compliance and reporting. How will compliance and reporting requirements be calibrated to the size, to the capacity and maturity of the SSAs in this sector, so that both large and small SSAs are not overburdened by administrative costs that detract from frontline service delivery?

My third clarification question is this: it has to do with managing overlaps and identifying system gaps. What system and what structured platform will be put in place to sense, to identify, to prioritise, to plan, to coordinate and to resource critical gaps, both existing and emerging, across the sector? How will NCSS and existing agencies work together to ensure that the most significant and urgent service gaps, such as that in adult disability, the impact of technology, artificial intelligence (AI), AI-driven robots, which really kept some of us worried because these technologies will take away some of the jobs that we are trying to create for the disabled, for the elderly. How will all these gaps be surfaced such that they will be addressed in the sector, in a coordinated and effective and timely manner?

In conclusion, Sir, this Bill marks an important step forward in how Singapore supports and governs its social service sector. It strengthens coordination, builds capability and also enables a more data-informed system – one that seeks to leave fewer people behind in our society, in our country. But at the same time, as a framework Bill, much will depend on how the Council's powers are exercised through subsequent regulations and implementation. Its true test will, therefore, lie not in the passage of the Bill today, but in how it is applied in practice after today.

As we strengthen NCSS and the system around it, we must also preserve the diversity, the humanity and the community-driven spirit innovation that give the sector its strength. So, in conclusion, with appreciation for the dedicated work of NCSS, Government partners, MSF and all the SSAs, and with a call for continued partnership and mutual trust, I do support the Bill. Thank you very much for doing this.

Mr Speaker: Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim.

2.26 pm

Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim (East Coast): Mr Speaker, I declare interest as a member of the ComChest as well as a member of the Board of Director at one of the member organisations of NCSS.

Mr Speaker, having spent close to 15 years journeying with SSAs and social service professionals and being inspired by the originators as well as players in the philanthropic space, I believe it is important for the Government to continue levelling-up support for the sector. It is important to ensure the sector and its professionals continues to uplift lives.

Many SSAs or Social Purpose Entities are members of NCSS and many social service professionals are dependent on NCSS for their growth and development. This review is timely, given how much Singapore and the world has changed. I support the Bill and its intentions.

Today, I will focus on three key points: the important role NCSS has and must continue to play; the importance of strengthening Council and committees for effective leadership; the importance of keeping ground-up social service initiatives supported; because everyone has a part and a role to play. First, Speaker, Sir, in Malay.

(In Malay): Within our community, there are many Malay or Muslim organisations (MMOs) and all of them have channelled their efforts to build and strengthen Singapore's support ecosystem – working hand in hand with other SSAs and organizations.

Often, these organisations do not just help the Malay or Muslim community, but also the wider society who are in need.

Therefore, councils such as the NCSS are important platforms for social service practitioners to collaborate, exchange knowledge and share experiences in their efforts to improve the quality of life of Singaporeans.

Hence, Mr Speaker, it is also important for NCSS to ensure that council members possess comprehensive skills, understanding and representation, whether clinical or cultural.

And as a statutory body with membership, I hope NCSS is also committed to supporting small organisations that are newly established.

But most importantly, today's amendments should benefit Singaporeans.

Fundamentally, NCSS and SSAs must ensure they continue to work hand in glove. Professor Poon earlier mentioned about "working hand-in-glove" – the same figure of speech.

(In English): Speaker, coming back to my three points. The important role NCSS has and must continue to play. Over the years, NCSS role extended beyond the membership association. I remember being elected as the President of the Singapore Muslim Women's Association (PPIS), back in 2020. I was a COVID-19 president and the sector was tackling the pandemic, having to pivot to safer service delivery while redesigning how we engage our beneficiaries and each other.

I remembered NCSS playing a key role to support members through initiatives, such as the Beyond COVID-19 Taskforce, funding so the sector can tide through, and guidance and support to accelerate digital transformations. When restrictions were lifted, I remembered the NCSS Council and senior management invested time to visit member organisations and convening like-minded organisations for professional circles, so we could collaborate and learn from each other.

One particular project I personally had a chance to work on with talented social service professionals is the NCSS' Volunteer Management Capability Development project, affectionately known as the VMCD in the sector. The initiative took member organisations through a comprehensive journey that helped participants develop their volunteer management policy and at the same time, strengthened resource management.

In essence, NCSS has been driving sector development by building capabilities, enabling ecosystem partnerships and mobilising resources from people and public sectors, but more importantly, by bringing members together to identify gaps and bridge services, all toward a more inclusive and caring society.

Increasingly, social challenges are becoming more complex and interconnected, requiring multi-dimensional intervention. Service users may find it challenging to navigate fragmented systems or interface with multiple agencies and overlapping interventions. As a sector developer, the outcome should also translate for service users to benefit from better coordination, resource allocation and optimisation to areas of greatest need, better lived outcomes not just now, but into the future.

Second, on a Council for diverse experts, representation and inclusion. Given the NCSS has more than 500 members currently, representation on the Board has to be deliberate and intentional for a diverse range of expertise and perspectives. I am truly appreciative that NCSS really took time to engage member organisations to explain the rationale of the amendments, including transitioning to a fully-appointed Council and to consider feedback from the ground to retain membership.

The selection process for the Council should ideally reflect expertise diversity and commitment to developing the social service sector. This would ensure an optimal mix of skills and experience to fulfil NCSS' updated mandate.

Additionally, it is important to ensure transparency, rigour and representation in the nomination, selection and appointment process. Needless to say, robust due diligence when assessing potential candidates is key, as is ensuring clear safeguards are in place for integrity and sector credibility and endorsement.

NCSS must remain close to the ground especially its members, who are important resources and sounding board for the Council to remain nimble to evolving to emerging needs and even as it streamlines its membership criteria. Having said that, NCSS should also pay close attention to ground-up initiatives in the sector, as well as support members whose membership may be affected during this transition.

On the sustainability of the social service sector, I am hopeful for NCSS to go further in shaping a sector that is not only responsive and cohesive, but also sustainable, supporting emerging ground-up initiatives and appealing, more importantly, to the next generation of social service professionals who choose a meaningful pathway and a career that is impactful.

Many SSAs and Special Purpose Entities are older than Singapore and started because a group of driven individuals got together, motivated to help vulnerable communities. The origin story of newly-founded charities has largely remained the same, such as SmilesSalamSG, founded by my Fengshan residents, whose work focuses on tackling food insecurity through pop-up grocery initiatives.

As sector developers, I hope for NCSS to continue to extend your ambit beyond your members, as has earlier been mentioned, and to support newly established SSAs to grow its impact sustainably.

And at the core of any sector, much like Singapore, is the people. Social service professionals should have elevated access to support for growth and development, to remain ahead of the curve and be equipped to support emerging needs of beneficiaries.

I recently spoke with a young talent, Q, who made a career switch to the sector and started his journey as a youth worker, a care staff. His drive saw him crossing the line to be an executive, but according to Q, his journey is an exception and not the rule.

Taking inspiration from how the Ministry has professionalised and continues to do so with the early childhood industry, I am hopeful that the refreshed mandate will also see more pathways for aspiring professionals in social impact, particularly specialised courses at post-secondary level.

With NCSS operating with a refreshed mandate, I am hopeful this Bill will strengthen Singapore's social service ecosystem, nurturing a sector that is capable, connected, diverse and aligned with the needs of the people it serves.

Mr Speaker, this Bill shows the sector's evolution and its aspirations. It reflects not only how far our social service sector has come, but also the level of stewardship now required of it. NCSS should continue to elevate its efforts as the drivers developing a sector that is capable, trusted and responsive to the evolving needs of our society. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.

2.36 pm

Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, I wish to share a few observations and expectations from the perspective of workers and families who rely on a strong and sustainable social service sector.

If NCSS is to take on a stronger role as a sector developer, we must be clear that sustainability cannot be measured solely by service outcomes but also by the well-being, skills development, workplace support and retention of the social and care workforce. I will focus my remarks on what a "sector development" must mean for workers on the ground.

Sir, as we support this Bill in principle, we must be clear. A sector cannot be sustainable if its workforce is not.

When we talk about social services, we often focus on clients and programmes, and rightly so. But the people delivering this work are our social and care workers, broadly defined, those on the ground doing casework, community support, caregiving, befriending, counselling, outreach and operational coordination. They are often under high emotional load, high caseload pressures and in a space where outcomes are not immediate and solutioning can be quite complex.

So, if NCSS is to be a successful and well-trusted sector developer, it must go beyond ensuring service delivery and pay close attention to the workers' needs, wages, skills, welfare, employment prospects and, of course, their well-being. It must also recognise that implementing this may increase service delivery costs and it must fulfil its duty to acquire the appropriate skills to work with the relevant Ministry to right-size funding support for the sector, so that the sector's employers can do right by their workers.

The Bill explicitly empowers NCSS to promote competencies and professional standards and to establish and maintain standards and guidelines for sector members. I would urge the Ministry and NCSS to interpret the "sector developer" role as explicitly workforce-centred, with real accountability. What I hope to see are three "worker outcomes" to be developed alongside service outcomes.

First, clear skills and progression pathways. Our social and care workers need structured development, entry pathways, bridging routes, advanced practice tracks, leadership development and supervision standards that protect both client and outcomes and worker well-being.

Second, a fair and comprehensible wage standards. It is difficult for any sector to recruit and retain talent when wage signals are unclear or comparability across sub-sectors is poor. Today, we see differences in how wage guidelines are expressed, for example, one using basic wages while another uses gross wages. This creates confusion for workers and makes it harder for employers to benchmark responsibly.

Third, well-being and workplace protection. The social service sector is emotionally demanding and draining. Worker well-being is not a "nice-to-have". It is a pre-requisite for quality service. We should treat supervision quality, psychosocial safety, manageable caseloads and respect in the workplace as part of sector development, because staff burnout and turnover ultimately harm the very clients we aim to support.

Sir, please allow me to make a few constructive requests.

Since NCSS now has a stronger sector-developer mandate and standard-setting role, can the Minister clarify how NCSS will institutionalise regular engagement with the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and the relevant unions so that worker outcomes are not incidental but are designed into the sector roadmap? In particular, I hope NCSS will welcome a discussion with NTUC on workforce standards and job quality, because workers' issues are often raised through unions, long before their problems become visible in the system-level indicators.

At a recent dialogue, the union side proposed to harmonise community care and social services wage guidelines and recommendations, precisely because inconsistent approaches, such as "basic versus gross", as I mentioned earlier, can distort benchmarking.

I understand that the goal discussed was to have harmonisation in place by first quarter 2026 before moving into accreditation, not just for the Community Care Organisations but also for SSAs. Could the Minister confirm whether the first quarter in 2026 remains the intended timeline for wage-guideline harmonisation and whether NCSS will play a facilitative role, given its new function to establish and maintain standards and guidelines for sector members?

On being "direct" about wages, Sir, I think we can do both. We can keep the principle high-level, that is, strengthen the wage competitiveness and clarity and also set a clear milestone through the harmonisation of first quarter in 2026. We owe social and care sector workers that level of seriousness, while giving agencies and employers room to manage implementation responsibly.

Sir, the Healthcare Services Employees Union shared a proposed accreditation framework for the community care sector, the Community Care Progressive Employer Mark, with tiering of bronze, silver and gold, to recognise employers who commit to wage benchmarks, workforce development, productivity improvements and progressive employment practices.

The proposed framework is structured around four pillars. First, wage benchmarks, referencing MOH salary guidelines; second, workforce development and skills enhancement aligned to Agency for Integrated Care skills standards/skills framework; third, manpower productivity, including job redesign and use of grants; and fourth, progressive employment practices – tripartite standards and fair employment practices should be in place. I welcome this direction, because it sends a clear signal. Being a good care provider must also mean being a good employer.

If NCSS is to be a sector developer, then I would ask, can the Minister share whether NCSS will support an accreditation approach that includes wage benchmarks and workforce development as central pillars and whether this can be extended beyond community care to social service agencies, in line with the earlier discussions?

We should also encourage employers in the social services sector to access support for job redesign, training and transformation. Where appropriate, I welcome employers to work with NTUC to explore schemes, such as the Company Training Committee grant, so that productivity improvements translate into better job quality rather than simply a higher workload.

Sir, I would also like to address implementation.

The Bill introduces sector members and requires compliance with prescribed standards, including those for cooperation with NCSS. This is understandable if NCSS is coordinating the sector more actively. Could the Minister clarify how NCSS will ensure that standards and reporting requirements are proportionate, particularly for the smaller agencies and charities that may not have the same administrative capacity? We must avoid where smaller organisations spend more time "servicing the system" than serving the clients.

Relatedly, the Bill also allows NCSS to consider whether an organisation's aims, objects and activities are contrary to the public interest, public order or national harmony when deciding whether to appoint or revoke a sector member. This is a serious evaluative ground. I would ask the Minister to elaborate on the safeguards and due processes in place to ensure decisions remain fair, transparent and consistent, particularly given that sector members status will likely be important for participation and sector coordination. Sir, please allow me to continue in Malay.

(In Malay): Sir, I support this NCSS (Amendment) Bill in principle, but its implementation must truly reflect NCSS's role as a "sector developer".

It is not about merely ensuring service delivery, but developing the social and care workforce that forms the backbone of the ecosystem with the support of our community.

The social sector does not just "help" the economy; it is a part of Singapore's economic and social infrastructure.

When families receive timely support, workers can continue working, maintain their productivity and recover from any hardship.

In an ageing society, community care support for loved ones also becomes key to ensuring workers do not have to choose between work and family responsibilities.

As a sector developer, NCSS needs to focus more decisively on job quality: skills development and career pathways, wage clarity and competitiveness, as well as workplace well-being and psychosocial safety.

We welcome efforts to harmonise salary guidelines across subsectors, including aligning definitions such as basic wage and gross wage, with clear targets, before moving towards progressive employer accreditation that recognises fair employment practices, training, productivity and worker protection.

In summary, to ensure better services for our people, we must first ensure that this sector offers good jobs to those entrusted to care for our community.

(In English): Mr Speaker, I hope we remember the spirit behind it. Strengthening NCSS as a sector developer is ultimately about strengthening the whole ecosystem, the services, the organisations and the people who do the hard work behind the scenes.

If we get this right, we will not only improve service delivery. We will also help workers stay in the workforce because their livelihoods and families are continually supported, strengthen community care for loved ones as our population ages, protect national mental and physical well-being through upstream support, and strengthen our social safety net so that people have a real chance to bounce back and thrive.

And crucially, we will create a sector where social and care workers, central in my speech, can build meaningful careers with fair pay, progression and well-being because that is what a truly sustainable sector looks like. Sir, with these observations and requests, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.

2.47 pm

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill which seeks to reconstitute the NCSS to reflect and strengthen its role as the sector developer for the social service sector. However, I have some questions and suggestions.

Sir, I support the Bill's proposal to strengthen sector membership criteria of the reconstituted Council. By prioritising organisations whose core business lies in the social service sector, the new Council will have the clarity and direction needed to perform its role effectively.

First, I fully support the proposal to remove membership fees and to streamline to a single-tier membership framework. This reduces costs in a backdrop where social service agencies are facing a double whammy of rising expenses while being hit with poorer fundraising outcomes. In fact, a recent CNA article in December 2025, just last month, reported that some charities saw their worst fundraising season in recent years.

Given NCSS' role as sector developer, a tiered membership structure with differentiated access is no longer necessary. Any cost savings for our social service agencies should be regarded as a beneficial outcome.

That said, I would like to ask, out of the more than 500 current NCSS members, how many members would be impacted by this move to narrow the membership criteria of the reconstituted Council? What is the percentage of members who have objectives and activities that are unrelated to the social service sector, and for this, I am truly curious as to why did they join NCSS as a member in the first place?

The Bill also proposes to shift to a fully Minister-appointed Council that will comprise of between 15 and 27 members. This may lead to an increase of the current Council size of 23 members. While the Minister has stated quite clearly that the Council will keep to 23 members in that immediate term, I would like to ask, what were the reasons behind setting such a large maximum size of the Council? Because having too many members risks making the Council bloated and perhaps unable to come to quick decisions.

On the other hand, if the Ministry should one day use the lower bound and appoint 15 members to the Council, what would be the considerations for this downsizing? And how would this impact the functional performance of the Council, which traditionally has 23 members?

Sir, I also support the new statutory appeal provisions proposed under the Bill. However, I note that such statutory appeals are currently limited to membership decisions made by the Council.

As the NCSS takes on an expanded role as the sector developer, which encompasses a larger social service mission beyond membership, I would like to ask if the other administrative decisions, as laid out under section 11, subsections (2) and (3) of the Bill, would also be open to similar formal appeals to the Minister. Examples of these administrative decisions include the award and revocation of funds, which has significant impact on our SSAs.

The expanded role of NCSS must be properly supported by having the right Council with a good mix of skills, knowledge and experience to drive NCSS as a sector developer. While I am happy to note that there will be continued sector representation in the new Council, with at least half of the Council appointed from sector members' nominations, I would like to ask the Minister what the nomination criteria would be. We should ensure that the Council has the right subject matter expertise to drive the necessary changes to the social services sector.

Sir, the ComChest is the primary fundraising and engagement arm of our social service sector, created to support the NCSS. Under the ComChest, fundraising is centralised and funding is then used to drive certain outcomes in the social service sector. How will the role of the ComChest and in particular, the functions of the staff of the ComChest, evolve with the new NCSS? Will changes to the enhanced governance framework for the ComChest impact current grant recipients and, if so, will there be a transition period for such recipients to improve their processes in order to qualify for continued grants?

Lastly, the NCSS releases a regular salary guide for social service professionals. This is a good guide that helps organisations in the sector to benchmark salaries paid to staff without having to engage expensive consultants on their own. However, I understand that every edition of the salary guide causes some consternation among social service executives, some of whom have given me feedback that it is a daunting task to try to match these salary guidelines.

I would like to ask if the NCSS plans to do a survey on the number of organisations that comply with the salary guidelines and in doing so, provide more support to help the social service sector become an industry of choice among Singaporean workers.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I cannot stress enough about the importance of the contributions made by our social service agencies and the tireless work that our social service workers must do daily. Many often have to sacrifice their personal time to help beneficiaries deal with issues that are complex, diverse and often multi-faceted.

As we reconstitute NCSS in its role as a sector developer, I urge the new Council to do more to build operational and professional capabilities of our social service agencies and our social service professionals to help them better cope with the ever-increasing complexity of the challenges that they face. We must also ensure that the new Council is equipped with the right mix of skills, knowledge and experience to give success in this area. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Elysa Chen.

2.55 pm

Ms Elysa Chen (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on the NCSS (Amendment) Bill. Before I proceed, I declare my interest as the Executive Director of CampusImpact. It is a registered charity and social service agency serving children from lower-income families, and we are a member of NCSS and also a close partner of NCSS.

Over the past few decades, Singapore's social sector has made significant strides, not just in the breadth of social provision but in the intentionality and foresight of how we plan for social needs. In recent years, we have seen deliberate shifts across multiple sub-sectors toward more preventive, community-based and person-centred models of care. I would like to highlight three examples.

For lower-income families, ComLink+ has moved beyond short-term financial assistance towards long-term family coaching, bringing together Government agencies, charities and the community to support families on sustained pathways towards stability and social mobility. In eldercare, the Age Well SG model and the development of Active Ageing Centres islandwide have embedded preventive care and social connection within our heartlands. In the disability space, the Enabling Masterplan 2030 charts a forward-looking vision centred on inclusive employment and lifelong learning. These efforts are supported and enabled, in part, by NCSS, which strengthens the charities and social service agencies that undergird much of our social impact work.

Established in 1992, NCSS has progressively widened its remit to strengthen the social service ecosystem. Between 2015 and 2025, NCSS introduced the Social Service Institute to build professional capability, launched the ComChest integrated fundraising model and developed sector-wide capability frameworks in areas, such as digitalisation, volunteer management, governance, fundraising and programme evaluation. In 2022, NCSS also introduced the 4ST Strategic Roadmap, guiding the sector towards more collaborative, user-centric service delivery.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to briefly centre this in a practical example from the ground. At CampusImpact, NCSS support has gone beyond funding alone. Through various capability-building and programme grants, NCSS enabled us to articulate our theory of change, develop service standards for our flagship programmes, adopt digital solutions to improve our productivity and strengthen our organisational processes, while hiring talent to strengthen our management team.

Just as importantly, NCSS officers worked closely with our team to help us navigate policy parameters, refine our proposals and think through implementation challenges. This combination of financial support and professional guidance helped a smaller agency like ours translate intent into effective delivery. It is this role, as an enabler, connector and capacity-builder, that makes NCSS more than an administrative body to the sector.

While much has been achieved, the sector faces significant challenges ahead. By 2035, Singapore's ageing population and the shrinking size of intergenerational households may necessitate a fundamental rethinking of care models. Over the next two decades, the resourcing landscape will continue to evolve, with charities facing tighter fundraising conditions and manpower constraints, exacerbated by competition with the healthcare sector and regional labour markets.

These pressures place a high onus on NCSS' role as an anchor institution for the sector. As this Bill seeks to formally entrench NCSS' position as a sector developer, I would like to raise several queries that relate to its long-term strategic alignment and governance. I appreciate that sections 5(3) and 15(3) of the Bill allows employees of NCSS member organisations to sit on the Board, which would ensure that ground experience and practice wisdom is brought to discussions at the board level, ensuring greater diversity and optimising the skills, experience and capabilities of the Board.

However, regarding Council appointments under sections 5 and 5F, while Ministerial appointment may strengthen strategic alignment, NCSS has historically maintained close relationships with frontline agencies and smaller charities. I would like to ask the Minister: how will the new framework ensure that frontline perspectives, particularly those of smaller agencies serving high-need or emerging communities remain meaningfully represented? What mechanisms will ensure that policy direction continues to be informed by lived realities on the ground rather than predominantly top-down considerations?

On oversight, what are the “prescribed requirements” for sector-nominated members of the NCSS Council? Will these criteria be publicly gazetted or tabled before Parliament? And will reasons for rejecting sector-nominated candidates or removing Council members be communicated to nominating organisations or made publicly available?

Second, on Ministerial directions and information requirements. While oversight is important, NCSS plays a unique bridging role, translating sector feedback into policy refinement while balancing government priorities. What measures will ensure that NCSS retains sufficient professional independence and capacity to surface gaps in funding models, workforce sustainability and unintended policy consequences so that it remains a trusted voice for the sector rather than a purely operational arm?

Third, on financial oversight. While the application of the Public Sector (Governance) Act strengthens accountability, key instruments such as the NCSS Endowment Fund and the ComChest direct significant resources across the sector. Will NCSS continue publishing annual accountability reports that set out major financial decisions, reporting metrics against its expanded mandate, and audit findings relating to these funds?

Mr Speaker Sir, with its strong track record and the challenges that lie ahead, NCSS will remain a cornerstone of Singapore’s social sector. To fully step into its role as a sector developer, it must continue to act as a central coordinator, enabling agencies to support vulnerable communities, persons with disabilities and other at-risk groups in a cohesive and complementary manner.

I appreciate Prof Kenneth Poon for recognising the close-knit network that the social service sector has grown into. If our social service sector is much like an orchestra made of many skilled and committed players, then NCSS is not meant to play the loudest instrument. Rather, it is the conductor, setting the tempo, ensuring harmony and allowing each organisation to contribute its strengths at the right moment. When the conductor does its job well, the music belongs to everyone. This Bill strengthens NCSS’s ability to play that role. NCSS should conduct the sector and not dominate it. For these reasons, Mr Speaker Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Lee Hui Ying.

3.03 pm

Ms Lee Hui Ying (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the NCSS (Amendment) Bill. I would like to first declare that I work in a non-profit philanthropic organisation that supports impact programmes in the region including Singapore.

Social service is the quiet work of standing with people on their hardest days. It takes place inside homes, family service centres and conversations where people are at their most vulnerable. This work carries emotional weight: listening, comforting and standing with families through moments of uncertainty. These are the steady hands that help keep our community strong even when the challenges are not always visible.

The Bill formalises NCSS’ role as sector developer of Singapore’s social service sector. Empowering the vulnerable members of our communities is a mission close to my heart and the hearts of my residents. The Bill’s proposed amendments demonstrate NCSS’ commitment to evolve its role, strengthen our social services sector and give Singaporeans the help they truly need.

I have three points of clarification, regarding first, NCSS’ mission to support sustainability of our social workers and social service officers. Two, nomination of the board members and third, the criteria for appointing sector members.

My first clarification relates to the sustainability of our social workers and social service officers. They are the foundation of our social service sector. If our transport workers move people, our social workers move hearts. We must give our social workers and social service officers the same care which they bring to the people and families they support.

Sadly, it is well known that social work has always been a very challenging career. Burnout is real. Difficult work conditions are real. Manpower shortages are real. Social workers have been known to handle 20 to 50 cases at one time and often handle crisis outside usual working hours. During the pandemic, when their help was most needed, it is concerning to learn that in a Singapore University for Social Sciences (SUSS) survey, over half of social workers surveyed suffered from anxiety.

I am glad that the Ministry recognises this and included in section 11 that the sustainability of the social service sector is one of the Council's statutory objectives. First, can the Minister share on the active steps that will be taken to meet this objective? What specific goals will the Council set to improve the sustainability for social workers and social service officers? For example, set targets to reduce caseloads, increase manpower and implement new strategies to help reduce workload for our social service officers.

Second, the Bill makes a major change in how the NCSS Board is appointed. Under the section 5 amendment, all Board members would be appointed by the Minister for Social and Family Development instead of having some elected members. Having elected members, especially SSA employees on the Board is important as these elected members have a strong mandate from their peers in the social service sector to speak out on critical issues. It would also allow more diverse representation across different issues and groups from people who regularly interact with volunteers and beneficiaries.

So therefore, it is extra important to uphold transparency in appointing Board members, or risk losing confidence and ownership by our social service sector in the Council. Can the Minister clarify the rationale for removing elected members and what will be done to ensure continuity of transparency? These are some potential gaps which should be addressed early so that we start with the right principles to build trust. What criteria will guide the Minister to ensure that sector members’ nominations provide a diverse representation of the social service sector? How will the Chairman receive nominations? Could the Minister also choose to reject a nomination by the Chairman? Will there be public disclosure of the nominations and the reasons for accepting or rejecting any nomination?

Lastly, can the Minister clarify exactly who will be eligible for NCSS Membership? Section 15 states that NCSS would appoint or re-appoint social service agencies who apply to be sector members, defined as “[having] the primary function of providing or supporting the provision of social services in Singapore.” Since memberships are no longer applicable, we can take a wide definition so that more groups can benefit from the support and network the Council provides.

How will NCSS define this “primary function”? Would social enterprises, for example, Dignity Kitchen, informal ground-up groups or religiously affiliated social organisations be eligible to be appointed as members? Are there any members now who would no longer be eligible for re-appointment under the new definition? Mr Speaker Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I support this Bill. Social services means being quietly present with those in need during their most difficult times. This work has no specific locations. It takes place in people's homes, at social service centres and in conversations during the most vulnerable moments.

Listening to, comforting and supporting families when they are lost and helpless inevitably involves deep emotions. Social services are like a pair of large hands that support our community, even in places we cannot see.

This Bill formally recognises the National Council of Social Services' (NCSS') role as a sector developer.

Through interactions with residents, I know that helping vulnerable groups in our community to become self-reliant and strong is our common vision.

The proposed amendments in this Bill demonstrates NCSS' commitment to its developing role and strengthening the sector to better help Singaporeans.

I hope to have further clarifications on how we support social workers. Social workers are the foundation of social services. Their care drives many people forward and we also need to care for and look after social workers, in order to enable them to continue this important mission.

We all know that social workers face enormous challenges. Burnout, poor working conditions and manpower shortages are very real problems. Some social workers may handle 20, or even 50 cases simultaneously and often need to deal with emergency situations outside office hours. A survey by the Singapore University of Social Sciences found that during COVID-19, more than half of the social workers surveyed faced anxiety issues, which is concerning.

I am heartened that the authorities have recognised this situation and included the sustainability of the social service sector as one of the Council's statutory objectives in this Bill.

Can the Minister further explain what actions will be taken to achieve this objective? Secondly, what specific plans will the Council establish to strengthen the sustainability of social service sectors, for example, reducing caseloads, increasing manpower or implementing new strategies to reduce social workers' workloads?

(In English): Mr Speaker Sir, social service is built on emotional labour. It carries heavy emotional drain and demands emotional resilience to continue caring for others. With the NCSS' expanded role in developing the social service sector, I hope this enables more social organisations to be able to reach and support all Singaporeans. Mr Speaker Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Cai Yinzhou.

3.12 pm

Mr Cai Yinzhou (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Thank you Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker I would like to declare my interest in NCSS, having been a past beneficiary of the NCSS 40-Under-40 Youth Leadership Development Programme.

I rise in support of the NCSS (Amendment) Bill. Recognising the importance of SSAs in providing support to Singaporeans and Singapore. This Bill codifies the role of NCSS as a sector developer and strengthens the delivery of social services to underserved groups in Singapore. Nevertheless, I would like to raise a few key areas for clarification, particularly on maintaining sector representation on the Council’s Board and furthering support for social enterprises.

My first clarification relates to ensuring sector representation on the Board of the Council. The social service landscape in Singapore is highly diverse with NCSS representing over 500 SSAs that support a variety of causes such as eldercare, persons with disabilities, youths at risk, lower-income families and mental health needs.

The public consultation on these amendments, conducted by MSF and NCSS indicated that ensuring sector representation on the Board is a priority. I commend the Ministry for taking this feedback into account and increasing the proposed Board size to 15-27 members and ensuring that half of the Board will be appointed by the Minister from sector members’ nominations.

To help the social service sector and public better understand how these new processes will be put into place, I would like to clarify the criteria for appointment to the Board. What specific criteria will be used to select Board members and what mechanisms will be put in place to ensure a diverse and representative demographic of organisations and members on the Board?

The ethos of the NCSS to unite communities for an inclusive and caring society is important. We should encourage not only a diversity of sectors represented on the Board, but also diversity of individuals of different genders, age groups, ethnic backgrounds, experience and skillsets. I strongly believe that doing so would support NCSS in its work and facilitate the balanced and holistic development of the social service sector.

My second clarification relates to the relationship between NCSS and social enterprises. Membership in NCSS is a valuable platform for the sector for networking, cross-learning and community-building opportunities. One of the amendments proposed in the Bill is to streamline the membership of NCSS, such that a member must either "have the primary function of providing a social service in Singapore", or "have the primary function of directly supporting the provision of a social service in Singapore". I note that, currently, some NCSS members have registered separate social enterprises as separate entities. In general, the operations of most social enterprises are closely intertwined with the social service sector.

The social enterprise sector strengthens social service delivery in Singapore. As the saying goes, "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; but teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." Social enterprises adopt diverse business models to better align with the complex needs of different stakeholders. For instance, many provide underemployed communities with critical employment and training opportunities, such as the Social Kitchen which employs disadvantaged individuals and their caregivers; or Foreword Coffee which hires workers with special needs. Operating social enterprise models allows them to reinvest their profits in their social missions. This provides a more sustainable income stream for the organisation, reduces reliance on donations and provides employment for beneficiaries and expands the capacity of their social programmes.

I note that many social enterprises might be members of raiSE Singapore, which is a cross-sector collaboration between MSF, NCSS and others. In line with the vision of expanding NCSS' role as sector developer, I would like to ask whether social enterprises will be eligible to register as members under NCSS or, if not, how NCSS plans to provide greater support for our social enterprises. Such support could take the form of linking social enterprises with investors, connecting social enterprises with individuals in need of employment more effectively and centrally.

Additionally, could the Ministry clarify the distinction between NCSS and raiSE, in terms of the functions they will play in supporting social enterprises? Social enterprises would also benefit, knowing whether they can seek support and membership with NCSS in addition to with raiSE. Notwithstanding these clarifications, I support the Bill for its decisive update to NCSS and the strengthening of the social service sector in Singapore.

Mr Speaker: Dr Hamid Razak.

3.18 pm

Dr Hamid Razak (West Coast-Jurong West): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the NCSS (Amendment) Bill 2025 and I would like to declare my interest as a past beneficiary of the NCSS' 40 Under 40 Programme as well as a Board Member and an advisor to aspiring sector members as well as current associate members of NCSS.

The social service sector has evolved significantly over the years, as mentioned by the Minister earlier. It now addresses a broader and more complex range of needs, from ageing and disability to mental health, family violence and social isolation.

In this context, I think it is timely that we update the legislative framework governing the NCSS so that it remains fit-for-purpose and well-positioned to guide the sector into its next phase of development, because when the social service sector functions well, it is our families, seniors and our vulnerable groups that will continue to do well and ultimately benefit.

I welcome the Bill's clear intent to strengthen governance, accountability and strategic clarity.

By explicitly articulating the Council's objectives, which is to build an effective, efficient and sustainable social service sector, the amendments provide important direction not just to the Council, but also to organisations working closely with it, particularly in a sector where resources are finite and expectations often high.

I also support the strengthened functions relating to the capability building, research, standards-setting and the ecosystem development.

Social service work today requires not only compassion, but strong governance, professional competencies and cross-sector collaboration. These amendments help position the Council as a sector developer, rather than merely a coordinating body.

A sound and professional social service sector builds confidence through transparency, credibility, accountability and excellence, strengthening trust among stakeholders, including donors and partners who are vital to the ecosystem.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to speak next about the introduction of sector members under the new framework. This refinement of the sector membership framework helps sharpen the Council's engagement with organisations that are directly involved in the delivery of social services or that directly support such delivery. A larger Council will allow for diverse sectoral perspectives to be represented at the highest level, enabling the Council to steer the organisation effectively in an evolving landscape while also taking on the expanded functions that this Bill provides for.

In addition, by formally engaging organisations whose primary function is to provide such social support services, the Council can strengthen partnerships with the sector while clearly maintaining lines of accountability. On this note, the Bill provides for clearer guidelines on the appointment and disqualification of members to the Council, among other terms, which I welcome as it enhances the professionalism and the operational efficiency of the Council. By addressing and correcting any perceived ambiguity, the Bill helps remove any future organisational issues.

At the same time, I note that the Bill provides the Council with powers to prescribe standards, require cooperation and revoke sector membership in certain circumstances. These are understandable and necessary from a governance perspective. However, I would encourage the Minister and the Council to remain mindful of the importance of sector voice and autonomy.

Many SSAs operate on the frontlines, working with vulnerable individuals and families in rapidly evolving circumstances. Ground realities often evolve faster than policy, and innovation frequently emerges from practitioners themselves. This is alluded to by Member Ms Dennis Phua earlier as well.

It is therefore important that the exercise of the Council's powers continues to be accompanied by regular consultation, dialogue and co-design, so that the standards and expectations are developed collaboratively and do not unintentionally stifle innovation or discourage candid feedback from the ground.

Mr Speaker, Sir, related to this, I wish to raise a second consideration for the Minister: the impact of these amendments on smaller and volunteer-driven organisations.

The Bill rightly emphasises professionalism and accountability. However, the social service sector is not uniform. Alongside large and well-resourced agencies, there are smaller community-based organisations that serve niche and minority groups and may not have the same administrative capacity. In fact, personally, I have been involved and continue to be involved, in such community-based organisations that have well-intended objectives and sincere and passionate leaders but, sometimes, lack large resources and deep capabilities.

While I understand that the Council already has existing powers under current membership, regulations to set standards and reporting requirements, I hope that these will be reviewed and operationalised under the amended framework. I hope that this would not cause these smaller community-based organisations to lose their membership status and, as a result, do not get resources allocated to them to serve these smaller groups in our population.

So, it would be prudent for the Council to adopt a graduated and supportive approach, such as perhaps, differentiated requirements, clearly defined transition periods and capacity-building support to those who need it. I am reassured by the Ministry's commitment to engage the sector on any changes to existing requirements, so that professionalisation does not come at the expense of diversity, grassroots energy or community trust. The strength of this sector is also reflected in its ability to innovate and welcome new ideas, participants and members.

I also note the provisions allowing the Minister to issue directions to the Council in defined circumstances. While this is understandable, given the Council's role in implementing Government policy, I trust that this power will continue to be exercised judiciously, preserving the Council's ability to engage openly with the sector and to provide frank policy advice grounded in operational realities.

The amendments relating to the ComChest are, likewise, timely. By clarifying its role in mobilising financial and in-kind resources, including volunteer support, the Bill reinforces the ComChest's position as a vital bridge between philanthropy and social needs. The updated governance framework will help maintain donor confidence while ensuring alignment with the Council's broader objectives.

I also welcome the strengthened financial provisions, including those relating to funds, investments and the endowment fund. As social needs grow more complex, financial resilience and stewardship will be increasingly important and these amendments provide a more robust framework for long-term sustainability.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in closing, this Bill represents a meaningful step forward in representing the institutional foundations of our social service sector. It equips NCSS with clearer authority, stronger governance and a more strategic mandate, while also reminding us of the need to balance oversight with partnership and accountability with trust.

I raise my points in the spirit of strengthening the Bill so that good governance goes hand in hand with sector vitality, innovation and inclusion. With these observations, I support the Bill and I look forward to its implementation, contributing meaningfully to a more resilient, responsive and compassionate social service ecosystem.

Mr Speaker: Mr David Hoe.

3.26 pm

Mr David Hoe (Jurong East-Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, before I begin, I would like to declare my interest that I work in a philanthropic organisation and was also one of the "40 Under 40" members for NCSS. Today, I am speaking in support of the NCSS (Amendment) Bill.

At its core, this Bill formally positions NCSS as the statutory sector developer for social services. It aligns the law with what NCSS has been increasingly expected to do in practice: to build an effective, efficient and sustainable social service sector, and to strengthen the wider ecosystem around it, including community support and volunteerism.

Today, NCSS is seen as a sector developer. It is expected to lead, to coordinate and to help the sector evolve. That said, as we strengthen the NCSS' mandate, it is important to carefully think about how these powers are exercised in practice. And for this, I would like to raise five points for consideration.

First, there is a risk of over-centralisation and perceived distance from the ground. Stronger coordination is the intent of the Bill, and rightly so. It is important to note that any system-steward model, where the role is not only just merely an operator, regulator or content owner, but as a caretaker of the wider ecosystem, it carries a trade-off.

However, one concern on the ground with NCSS taking on this role that we are here is, will it create more rules and frameworks that actually discourage experimentation? If we over-standardise, we may unintentionally dampen the local innovation that specialises in serving specific communities.

In my conversation with many agencies, many often innovate because they know what works for the community that they interact with. Many try new outreach methods, new approaches, culturally sensitive approaches or partnerships with schools and employers.

But if standards become too rigid, then the "cost of trying something new" rises. Staff may worry that a pilot will fail an audit requirement, fall outside prescribed service boundaries or create additional reporting burden. All these can create a risk-averse culture where agencies stick to safe, familiar programmes, even when emerging needs require new approaches.

In this regard, social needs are not uniform. What works for seniors living alone might not work for youths-at-risk. What works for families living in a rental block may not work for persons with disabilities navigating employment. Hence, we should strive to continue supporting innovative and tailored approaches as we journey towards strengthened sector coordination with this Bill.

One possible way forward is a "standards-plus-sandbox" approach over clear baseline for safety and governance, paired with structured space for innovation and differentiated models. This allows for consistency without crowding out creativity on the ground.

My second point, like many have mentioned, is Council composition and sector nominations. The Bill requires that at least half of the Council, excluding the Chairperson, to be appointed from individuals nominated by sector members. It also allows the Chairperson to exclude nominees who do not meet prescribed requirements. Also, when appointing the members of this Council, the Minister must consider whether the members of the Council will collectively possess appropriate knowledge, skills and experience for the Council to perform its functions effectively.

Against this backdrop, I was asked what is considered "appropriate knowledge, skills and experiences". From my viewpoint, it should not be narrowly read as titles or credentials. It should include practical exposure to service users' journeys; for instance, having prior experience on seeing how a resident moves from first contact to assessment, to referral, to ongoing support. This enables an understanding of where friction occurs, where people fall through the cracks and what dignity in service actually looks like.

These are not soft qualities. They are practical lenses that help a Council to anticipate unintended consequences, blind spots in standards and design policies that citizens can actually live with. We must also avoid the possibility of a perception risk where nomination pipelines are dominated by larger agencies with more administrative capacity and wider networks.

While I do not think every detail needs to be hard-coded into primary legislation, I think a clearer competency framework would strengthen confidence in how the Council is constituted. Put simply, the Council should collectively cover a balanced mix of core skill sets. For example: service delivery and practice insight; skills in governance, risk, audit, finance, accountability; sector capabilities and an eye on quality improvement.

At the same time, beyond skill sets, the Council should be mindful of representation across sectors, including diversity across sub-sectors that ensuring smaller and specialised SSAs have a meaningful voice.

At the heart of it, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not about excluding anyone; we know everyone can bring something to the table, but what is also equally important is what exactly does this table needs so that we can be more effective in the work that we do.

Third, we should also avoid unintentional compliance burdens on smaller agencies, as mentioned earlier. The Bill introduces "sector members" and requires compliance with prescribed standards for management, administration, service provision and cooperation with NCSS in section 15(4).

This direction is sound since standards protect service users. But there is also a real risk if compliance becomes too heavy or too uniform. NCSS' own Industry Digital Plan for Social Services has highlighted uneven capacity across agencies, particularly in digitalisation and capability building. This, in my view, is a proxy indicator for broader compliance risks.

We should avoid a situation where: reporting becomes a hidden tax on smaller SSAs; agencies with weaker back-office capacity fall behind; compliance becomes a proxy for quality, but actually they are not always the same. These two are not the same.

In my view, I think a proportionate, tiered approach to standards, supported by templates, shared tools, transitional support, would help to ensure that raising the floor does not inadvertently shrink the sector.

Allow me to clarify what does "proportionate, tired approach" means. It means ensuring that all agencies meet clear baseline requirements for safety, governance and accountability, while scaling additional compliance and obligations according to an agency's size, risk profile and service complexity.

Smaller community-based agencies should not be weighed down by the same administrative burdens as large, system-critical providers, while agencies serving more vulnerable populations should rightly face with higher safeguards. Paired with shared tools, templates and transitional support, such an approach will allow us to protect service users without unintentionally squeezing out innovation or capacity on the ground.

My fourth point on procedural fairness must be clear and accessible. The Bill allows NCSS to revoke sector-member appointments, with appeals to the Minister within 14 days, and with Minister's decision being final. These safeguards are important, but they must be usable in practice.

In the guidance, it would be helpful to ensure that: there are clear written reasons for refusal; there are reasonable timelines and plain-language appeal templates; accessibility support for smaller agencies with limited administrative capacity is made available and accessible; and a predictable and transparent processes that are laid out so that this regime, this process is experienced as a fair one rather than an arbitrary one.

Finally, a few asked me this question, because the public will eventually ask this: after this Bill, how will we know that the sector is stronger?

The Bill anchors NCSS' objectives clearly: effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, stronger delivery, capability and ecosystem development. These are the right goals. But citizens are also looking for measurable signals. Without oversimplifying complex social outcomes, it may be useful to publish sector-level indicators such as service access and timeliness, aggregated service-user satisfaction and outcomes, and workforce retention and training uptake.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a saying: if you want to go fast, go alone; if you want to go far, go together. And social services are, by definition, a "go-together" endeavour. They are a vital pillar of the "we first" society as we seek to strengthen.

This Bill strengthens our ability to go together, through clearer stewardship, clearer standards, stronger coordination and modern governance. If we pair these reforms with fair processes, proportionate standards, transparent governance and real sector voice, this Bill can help to build a social service system that is both stronger and more trusted. With these points, Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hong Weng.

3.36 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, many residents in my Yio Chu Kang constituency do not look at this Bill to scrutinise its technical clauses. They judge our social service system by its real-world impact: does help arrive on time? Is a vulnerable senior noticed? Is a child kept safe?

I have several clarifications on this Bill.

First, Mr Speaker, Sir, the composition of the Council determines the sector's perspective. Who sits at the table potentially decides what issues are prioritised and more importantly, what blind spots remain. Families in rental flats often rely on small agencies and volunteers who see early warning signs that larger systems miss. The Council should reflect the realities of those who work closest to danger. Under the new section 5, the Minister appoints the Chairperson and the Council, with at least seven nominees from the sector. While this provides representation, it may not automatically secure independence or the necessary frontline perspective.

Furthermore, under clause 5(3), the Chairperson may exclude nominees who do not meet "prescribed requirements". If these are not transparent, we risk screening out plain-speaking, ground-level voices.

We must also guard against over-selecting representatives from organisations whose funding incentives align them towards administrative stability rather than candour. The Council needs "risk signal specialists" whose duty is to identify blind spots, not simply reinforce consensus.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my second point is about the risks of hidden directions, absent enforceable duties and fragmented accountability.

Under clause 10(6), the Minister may issue directions which the Council "must not disclose". While I understand the need for confidentiality in state security, social services deal with safety. If a Ministerial direction effectively changes escalation thresholds for child abuse or elder neglect, and that direction is sealed, how can this House scrutinise whether those thresholds are safe? We cannot provide a counterbalance to what we cannot see. I ask if Parliament could at least receive an anonymised annual briefing on such directions.

Clause 11(4) explicitly states that the objectives of the Council "do not impose any duty on the Council enforceable in a court of law". After reviewing past cases involving systemic lapses and delayed escalation, this can be concerning. If clause 11(2)(b) empowers NCSS to coordinate the sector, authority must be paired with responsibility. Should NCSS not have a statutory responsibility to lead serious case reviews and publish anonymised lessons?

Finally, regarding clause 14, which grants immunity for officers acting in "good faith". While I support protecting social workers from frivolous liability and recognise the difficult judgement calls they face on the ground, "good faith" must not become a shield for repeated oversight.

We must ensure this immunity does not inadvertently reduce the incentives for rigorous self-critique. When no one is legally responsible, everyone becomes morally invisible. When every agency can point to a process that was technically and legally followed, cases can still fall through the cracks.

Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am concerned that the broad powers to appoint or remove sector members may unintentionally make agencies more cautious about escalation. Many agencies serving my residents are small and nimble. They enter rental flats daily. They detect risks early. They escalate issues promptly. We need them to be brave.

Clause 10, under new section 15(6), empowers NCSS to revoke membership if an organisation acts "contrary to the public interest". These are broad terms. Could a passionate agency that challenges policy gaps be misinterpreted as acting against "public interest"? We need clarity on how public interest is distinguished from administrative convenience.

Furthermore, section 15(4) requires "cooperation with the Council" as a condition of membership. We must ensure that "cooperation" is not misread as "compliance". True cooperation includes the duty to raise concerns, notify relevant authorities and comply with the law by lodging police reports where necessary. Sometimes, the most constructive partnership is demonstrated when an agency says, "You are wrong, and this child is in danger." This Bill must protect such engagement as a vital form of cooperation.

On recourse: under section 16, appeals regarding membership go back to the Minister. What prevents this from becoming a circular loop without independent review? If an agency is removed for being too vocal about a systemic failure, appealing to the Ministry that oversees that system provides little reassurance.

Finally, regarding clause 18 and the dissolution of committees without compensation: while legally standard, we must consider the signal it sends. We should ensure long-serving members and volunteers feel recognised, not dismissed so they remain empowered to speak up.

Mr Speaker, Sir, after past cases involving serious harm and delayed intervention, no agency should ever hesitate to escalate a risk because they fear losing their status, their funding or their place in the system. This Bill must strengthen the courage of the sector, not the caution.

Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, the new "sector developer" powers under section 11 must translate into real-world outcomes. Residents measure success simply: when we call for help, does someone actually come? I have four questions on how this will be operationalised.

First, on coordination under section 11(2)(b). Will this include cross-system risk detection mechanisms? Specifically, will this include mechanisms to detect risk across systems and agencies early? Past tragedies have shown that failures often arise not from the absence of services but from fragmented information and lack of shared visibility. We need a system that links data so that when, say, a child goes missing in one domain, the alarm rings in all.

Second, on standards, in section 11(2)(e). How do we prevent over-standardisation from suppressing local innovation? Often, ground-up charities spot risks first because they are not following a rigid, top-down template. Standardisation must raise the floor without lowering the ceiling of innovation.

Third, on geographical vulnerabilities. A rental block in Yio Chu Kang faces different pressures from, say, a Build-To-Order (BTO) in Punggol. Should NCSS not publish region-level indicators of responsiveness, instead of only national averages? A national average of "90% satisfaction" is of no comfort to a neighbourhood where the response time is three weeks.

Fourth, on capabilities under section 11(2)(f), the most vital capability is learning from failure. Should there not be an explicit requirement to turn every serious case review into sector-wide learning? We also need a "near-miss" reporting system, similar to aviation, so the whole body learns when one part fails.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill gives NCSS more authority, more responsibility and more influence over how our social service ecosystem evolves. That matters, because residents do not experience systems in theory. They experience them in moments of need. They ask simple questions: does help arrive on time? Is a vulnerable senior noticed? Is a child kept safe?

Having listened carefully to the various speeches today, there is a clear conversion in our PAP MPs' views. Members have broadly welcomed the Bill's intent to strengthen NCSS as a sector developer, while consistently emphasising shared priorities. Members have also asked for stronger governance and workforce development to go hand-in-hand with meaningful sector voice.

Accountability and data use must be match by transparency, proportionality and trust. Coordination must strengthen, not weaken, responsiveness to frontline realities, small agencies and emerging needs. It is in this collective spirit that the clarifications raised today should be considered.

These shared concerns bring us back to why this Bill matters and why its design choices matter. Authority without independence is brittle. Responsibility without transparency is hollow. Standardisation without courage is dangerous. Development without protection is meaningless. We should not pass this legislation in a vacuum. We pass it with the memory of every case where the system hesitated, fragmented or deferred when it needed to act. The names change, but the lessons do not. The cost of hesitation is life itself.

Our duty is clear. When a warning light flickers, the system must sharpen, not soften. It must escalate, not hesitate. It must protect, not disappear into administrative cracks. If we shape NCSS into a body that welcomes frank voices, values ground insight, supports escalation and learns from failure, this Bill will do more than restructure a Council. It will strengthen the safety net for every child, every senior, every caregiver and every vulnerable person in Singapore. Notwithstanding these clarifications, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Minister Masagos.

3.47 pm

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Mr Speaker, I thank the Members for their comments and support for the Bill. I hear their aspirations, their caution and I take them in good spirit. I am heartened by the care shown for the social service sector and the endorsement of NCSS' work.

Members have expressed broad support for NCSS' role as a sector developer, the value of sector membership and the need for a diverse and representative Council. I will now address the questions and clarifications that Members have raised.

Ms Lee Hui Ying, Mr Cai Yinzhou, Mr Melvin Yong and Mr David Hoe asked for clarifications on sector membership. On whom will qualify, an organisation must have the primary function of providing or directly supporting the provision of a social service in Singapore. NCSS will look at each application and assess the organisation's objectives and activities against these criteria.

Today, there are about 400 Full Council Members and close to 100 Associate Council Members. With the changes, all Full Council Members will be transitioned to become sector members. So, about 400 of them, since the criteria for Full Council membership align with those of sector membership.

Associate Council membership will be ceased. Current Associate Council members who meet the criteria are welcome to apply for sector membership.

But there may be some organisations, such as those whose primary functions do not relate to social services within Singapore, which would not qualify for sector membership. Such organisations are a subset of all Associate Council Members, and joined NCSS at a time when the membership criteria was much broader. NCSS will ease this transition, including honouring any existing support until its expiry.

On social enterprises, the Singapore Centre for Social Enterprise (raiSE), established by MSF, serves as the dedicated membership body to provide them tailored support and resources. Moving forward, if a social enterprise also wishes to be an NCSS sector member, its application will be assessed, in consultation with raiSE, on a case-by-case basis, depending on its objectives and activities.

Nevertheless, as a sector developer, NCSS will work with partners in the ecosystem regardless of their sector membership status to find solutions to our social challenges. Indeed, over the years, NCSS has been working closely with raiSE – itself a current NCSS member organisation – to build stronger enterprise capabilities in the sector for financial sustainability and partnerships between SSAs and social enterprises to better serve users.

Mr Yip, Mr Hoe and Dr Hamid Razak asked about the rejection and revocation of sector membership and appeals to the Minister for such decisions, emphasising the importance of transparency and independence of such processes. In particular, Mr Yip asked if agencies that challenge policy gaps could be misinterpreted as acting against the public interest.

I assure Members that we want to continue to have constructive conversations. In fact, we welcome diverse views and suggestions, including surfacing challenges and gaps in existing policies and programmes, that can help us strengthen the ecosystem. The aim of these powers is to ensure that organisations meet the criteria for sector membership and to safeguard the diverse yet cohesive, responsible and respectful social service sector that we have built over the years.

This is also the thinking behind the clause requiring that sector members' aims, objects and activities do not go against public interest, public order or national harmony. Similar clauses exist in other legislation.

The appeal mechanism is also precisely in place as a check and balance for NCSS' sector membership decisions. Sector membership applications will first be assessed by the Council. Appeals will only go to the Minister if an applicant disputes a decision that the Council stands by.

We agree with Mr Hoe on the importance of transparency and the appeal processes and timelines will be clearly communicated.

I will now move on to the Council-related comments. I would like to thank Members for their suggestions and comments, including Prof Kenneth Poon for sharing his personal experience as an NCSS Board Member.

Ms Elysa Chen, Mr Hoe, Ms Lee and Mr Yip asked how we can ensure diverse representation under a fully-Minister appointed Council. Unlike the previous elections system for the NCSS Board, an appointment approach gives us greater certainty that we can constitute the Council with people from various backgrounds, including candidates from organisations of different sizes and nature, and with the necessary range of skills and experiences.

We have provided that at least half of the Council, excluding the Chairperson, must come from sector members' nominations, as a clear indication of our commitment to ensure that the sector is represented on the Council. To further expand the range of perspectives, we have also proposed amendments to allow employees of sector members to be appointed onto the Council, since their expertise and experience will provide important ground perspectives, as Ms Lee also observed.

Based on our past experience with the NCSS Board, the results of elections are dependent on who chooses to run at the annual general meeting (AGM), how well-known the candidates are amongst those voting and sometimes, how influential the nominating organisation is. The shift to a fully appointed Council allows for the composition of the Council to be considered as a whole, so that it better represents the sector and has the necessary mix of skills and perspectives.

This brings me to the specific criteria and process for Council appointments, which Ms Chen, Mr Yip, Mr Cai, Ms Lee, Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim, Mr Yong and Mr Hoe asked about.

As Mr Hoe rightly pointed out, it is not desirable for every detail and criterion to be hardcoded in primary legislation, and trying to do so may introduce unnecessary rigidity that will not be helpful to NCSS functioning effectively, particularly as needs change in the future. We are working out the specific implementation details and will share more with sector members in due course.

As Prof Poon pointed out, NCSS needs broad expertise and deep sector insight to effectively steward the sector. Broadly, we will consider whether individuals have relevant experience in senior leadership, governance or social service. We would also look out for individuals with specific skillsets, like law, finance or technology. Beyond professional credentials, experience on the ground is also important.

Process-wise, the Chairperson will submit all nominations to the Minister, except for those which do not meet requirements prescribed by Regulations. These prescribed requirements cover procedural matters, such as each sector member nominating only one individual from their organisation, which would include their board members, and fully completing application forms.

As earlier shared, a Nominations Committee will be established to assist with the nominations process. To Ms Hazlina's points, the committee will comprise individuals with diverse experience, expertise and high standing in the sector. We will share details of the composition of the committee in due course.

Mr Yong and Prof Poon asked about the rationale behind providing for a range in the Council size, with an increased maximum size of 27, and how the exact size will be determined in practice. The range is comparable to that of the allowed size of other Statutory Boards that play similar roles in their sectors, like the National Arts Council and the National Heritage Board, and the eventual size will be based on the needs of the time.

Ms Chen and Ms Lee asked if the reasons for rejecting nominations or removing Council members would be communicated. Sector members will be notified of the outcome of their nominations. If there are prescribed requirements that the nominees do not meet, we may inform the sector member accordingly.

On the removal of Council members, even though the Bill provides that the Minister is not obliged to provide reasons, where appropriate, we will engage the relevant Council member in the exceptional circumstances where the Minister has to exercise the power.

Mr Yip asked about the transition for current NCSS Board and committee members. Practically, our intent is for them to serve out their current term, that is, until 31 July 2026. Mr Yip may be assured that MSF and NCSS values the work of all who serve on NCSS' committees and Board and recognises them through various platforms.

I would also like to highlight that at the end of the day, Council appointments are not the only avenue for sector voices to be heard. As sector developer, NCSS will continue to closely engage the sector, gather insights from the ground, and partner with the Government to strengthen outcomes.

In the last few years, NCSS has been organising leadership visits between MSF's and NCSS' management and SSAs, small group engagements with Board leaders, on top of large-scale engagements, workshops and clinics that are open to all NCSS member organisations. I have attended some of these engagements. And these will continue. MSF and NCSS value the views, insights and work of our ecosystem players, and will continue listening to and co-creating with the sector.

Like many Members stressed in their speeches, the key is to have processes that build trust. There is no single perfect system or process, but it will be in the conduct of each nomination and appointment, and in the everyday engagements and partnerships that NCSS forms with stakeholders in social services, that we strengthen the trust that we have built over the years.

Lastly, I want to address the most important issue, which is the impact of the changes on the users of social services, the sector and society. As Ms Denise Phua noted, this Bill will indeed strengthen NCSS' role, as sector developer, to coordinate services to provide more effective and efficient support to those in need, and raise the sector's organisational and digital capabilities. As social issues have become increasingly cross-cutting, NCSS will work closely with relevant Government agencies across different domains and leverage inter-agency platforms and mechanisms to identify and meet service users' needs holistically and in a coordinated manner.

A few Members also asked about the implications of the Bill for innovation in the sector. Ms Phua, Ms Chen, Dr Hamid, Dr Wan Rizal, Mr Hoe and Mr Yip expressed concerns about the potential impact of NCSS setting standards on sector members, especially smaller ones, as well as of the Ministerial power to issue directions to NCSS.

First, on innovation. It is in NCSS' DNA to work with the sector to incubate ideas to meet emerging needs. This will not change with this Bill. For example, NCSS recently introduced the Income OrangeAid Caregiver Support Accelerator Grant, in partnership with Income Insurance Limited, to encourage SSAs and their partners to develop solutions to strengthen support for caregivers in Singapore – an important area of need that we are seeing.

NCSS also supports innovation in the sector, for example, through the National Design Challenge, a platform where anyone can step forward to design solutions for social issues. NCSS also supports SSAs in measuring the effectiveness of their programmes through the SG60 Towards Sustainability Fund, which provides funding and capability building support.

NCSS will continue to take a principled and risk-proportionate approach to governance, to promote innovation and reduce red tape, while maintaining high standards of accountability. The need to meet standards and obligations set by NCSS is not new to current Council Members. Broadly similar obligations already exist in subsidiary legislation under the NCSS Act today and are intended to protect service users, for accountability and to uplift the sector. For example, today, Full Council Members must submit copies of their annual report, audited accounts and balance sheet to NCSS yearly.

This is important, given that many of these organisations, who will become sector members after the amendments, receive donations and public funds and must steward these resources appropriately. NCSS is always mindful of the compliance load on member organisations, particularly small ones, when new standards and obligations are introduced.

We thank Mr Hoe, Ms Phua and Dr Hamid for their suggestions to take a proportionate approach and provide sufficient time and capacity-building support for sector members to meet any standards imposed. NCSS will support and engage sector members when implementing any new standards and do so in a practical manner, including providing relevant resources and training, as it has been doing.

In response to Mr Yong's query on the functions and governance of ComChest, the amendments do not change the fundraising function of ComChest. The updated governance provisions apply to the conduct and management of ComChest, rather than grant recipients. Besides impact on organisations, Ms Lee, Dr Rizal and Ms Hazlina asked about the impact on professionals. It is indeed both MSF's and NCSS' intent to support our social service professionals and we have been doing so.

In recent years, NCSS has embarked on several initiatives to address sector manpower needs. This includes funding SSAs through the Transformation Sustainability Scheme to enhance their people management practices, redesigning jobs and augmenting manpower with volunteers and technology.

We share Dr Rizal's views that worker well-being is important and have rolled out various initiatives to support our sector professionals. For example, NCSS introduced the Sabbatical Leave Scheme, which offers eligible professionals a chance to rejuvenate with 10 weeks of paid sabbatical leave.

Moving forward, MSF and NCSS will be setting up a Protection Practitioners Care Fund to implement capability building and well-being initiatives for protection practitioners. More details will be shared later this year.

Ensuring good jobs in the sector will continue to be part of NCSS' work as sector developer and we will work with all stakeholders, including sector members, unions and MOH to ensure there are quality jobs and clear salary guidelines in the sector. On the Ministerial power to issue directions, this is part of the governance framework for all Statutory Boards and there is already a broadly similar power under the NCSS Act today. This is not intended to interfere with NCSS' exercise of its functions or limit NCSS from representing feedback from the sector. We value the critical function that NCSS plays in reflecting the sector's voice, to ensure that our policies are grounded in operational needs and realities.

Mr Yong asked about the channels to provide feedback on NCSS's administrative decisions. Both MSF and NCSS have open channels for organisations to provide feedback and we are committed to ensure that our policies and programmes are effective in meeting their outcomes.

Finally, I note Members have given useful inputs and suggestion that we will take into consideration when drafting the subsidiary legislation as well as operational procedures to support the implementation of the amendments. I also ask for Members' understanding that I will not be able to address some of Members' other queries and comments that go beyond the remit of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I will now conclude. This Bill has been several years in the making. NCSS first formally engaged the sector on the proposed amendments at its AGM in July 2024. Since then, there have been many further engagement sessions, which have helped shape the Bill before us today. Many Members, including Ms Phua, Dr Hamid and Ms Chen, highlighted the importance of preserving the sector's voice and of continuing to engage the sector and ensure coordinated action across stakeholders. To echo Mr Xie Yao Quan's observation, this is indeed what MSF and NCSS have been doing, including through the consultation process for this Bill and will continue to do.

This Bill strengthens NCSS' ability to act as the bridge for sector feedback to be translated into policy. By formalising NCSS' expanded role as Sector Developer, NCSS is better able to consult more widely, identify ground needs and closely partner and coordinate with stakeholders to develop the social service sector. With this Bill, NCSS will be well positioned to lead the sector to achieve better outcomes and improve the quality of life of users of our social services.

I thank Members for your support for this Bill. Mr Speaker, I seek to move.

4.09 pm

Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications for the Minister? None. Okay.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

The Chairman: The citation here "2025" will be changed to "2026" as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.

Clauses 1 to 18 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with amendment.

Question for Third Reading put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.

Mr Speaker: We have been in the Chamber for over four hours, so I propose to take a break now. I will suspend the Sitting and will assume the Chair at 4.30 pm. Order, order.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.12 pm until 4.30 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.30 pm.

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