Social Residential Homes Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

2.35 pm

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Eric Chua) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Social and Family Development, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Many Singaporeans have opportunities to flourish and thrive at every life stage. This is part of our social compact, where Singaporeans have access to opportunities and are valued, regardless of their backgrounds or circumstances.

However, some amongst us may not have sufficient means to provide for themselves and may need additional assistance.

Social residential homes provide alternative care arrangements for the most vulnerable amongst us. Today, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) oversees more than 60 social residential homes that provide 24/7 residential care to almost 4,000 residents. These include seniors, vulnerable adults, children and young persons in need of care and protection, persons with disabilities and destitute persons.

Members in this House may be familiar with some social residential homes.

Chen Su Lan Methodist Home, for example, operates a Children’s Home and a Children Disability Home within the same compound. This home provides residential care to children in need of care and protection, including some with developmental needs.

Thye Hua Kwan is another example. They operate seven social residential homes that provide residential care to children and adults with disabilities, and destitute persons.

Social residential homes have existed in Singapore, long before we gained Independence. In the past 60 years, we have journeyed with the sector to provide good quality care to residents through funding, licensing and training.

The Government first started funding Children’s Homes in the 1960s. In the 1970s and 1980s, funding was extended to Homes caring for seniors and persons with disabilities.

To improve the quality of care in Homes, we further introduced a licensing regime for Sheltered Homes under the Homes for the Aged Act in 1988, as well as Homes for Children and Young Persons, which include Children’s Homes and Children Disability Homes, under the amendments to the Children and Young Persons Act in 2011.

We also recognised the need to equip their staff with specialised skillsets to care for persons in residential care. In 2011, MSF and the Social Service Institute developed certificate programmes in residential care. To date, about 1,500 professionals have been trained.

More recently, in 2024, MSF and SG Enable introduced a skills and competency framework to guide Disability Sector Professionals, such as care staff and social workers, in effectively supporting and providing training for persons with disabilities.

Over the years, care models have evolved to better meet residents’ needs. Today, we adopt a tiered approach for the Children’s Homes, where more intensive care is provided to children with higher care needs.

The Social Residential Homes Bill is a proactive step taken by MSF to codify the good progress that has been made in raising the quality of care provided by the sector over the years.

The first question people ask tends to be “Why now?”. To be clear, we are not coming from a position of deficit. Incidents of a serious nature are rare and our Homes are upholding good standards. The introduction of the Bill is to prepare for the future.

Looking ahead, our population is rapidly ageing and family sizes are shrinking. The Government continues to strengthen efforts to help our seniors age in place, and enable persons with disabilities to live with dignity and participate in the community. Nonetheless, we recognise that there will always be some who are more vulnerable, who will need residential care. It is therefore important that we continually strive for higher quality care in social residential homes.

This Bill will uplift the quality of care across the social residential home sector and strengthen safeguards for the safety and well-being of residents.

Under this Bill, we will consolidate the existing licensing regimes for Sheltered Homes, and Homes for Children and Young Persons, which comprises Children’s Homes and Children Disability Homes. In addition, unlicensed Homes, which are mostly governed today through funding agreements, will now be brought under the ambit of this Bill.

In total, 61 Homes with about 4,000 residents will come under this Bill – a significant increase from the 35 Homes, with approximately 1,100 residents, that are currently licensed.

To arrive at this Bill, we conducted many engagements with the different stakeholders, such as Home operators, board members and members of the public. I would like to express my appreciation to all operators and board members of the 61 Homes who have worked closely with us to develop this Bill. Your views, ideas and feedback have helped us to better understand the needs in our social residential home landscape. Thank you for your active participation in co-creating solutions with us and for your tireless work over the years to care for our residents.

Before I go into the key provisions, allow me to first clarify the three main groups of people mentioned in the Bill.

First, the licensee. This refers to entities or individuals who are responsible and accountable for the overall compliance with requirements in the Bill.

Second, the key appointment holders. This refers to individuals who are responsible for strategic leadership and overall management of the Home.

Third, the person-in-charge. This refers to the head of the Home who oversees day-to-day management of Home operations.

I will now turn to the key provisions of the Bill, which are grouped into three key areas: first, setting clear standards for Homes to deliver quality care; second, establishing stronger safeguards for residents’ safety and well-being; and third, introducing a comprehensive enforcement framework as a deterrence against errant operators.

The first key area is setting clear standards for Homes to deliver quality care.

MSF will issue Codes of Practice, which comprises regulatory requirements pertaining to key areas, such as: one, governance of the Home; two, management of premises; three, resident management; and four, incident management.

Today, some Homes already comply with standards as set out in our service model requirements, in order to receive funding. Moving forward, these Codes of Practice will provide greater clarity to both operators and residents on the standards of care that are expected from operators. These Codes of Practice will be issued after close consultation with operators, with guidance and support from MSF to ensure that Homes can meet the specified requirements.

The second key area focuses on stronger safeguards for residents’ safety and well-being. Home residents require 24/7 care and are heavily reliant on others to fulfil daily living needs, such as dressing and toileting. Other residents are children. These are highly vulnerable persons. It is therefore necessary to ensure that residents not only receive quality care and support, but are also safeguarded from harm in these Homes.

Our Home operators share this common commitment with us. Mr Michael Gan, chief executive officer of the Bishan Home for the Intellectually Disabled, commended the Bill for building on the good foundations our sector has already established. He described these clear parameters as a step towards greater accountability to help us achieve our common goal of residents’ safety and well-being.

Ms Nura Binte Hassan, the head of Bukit Batok Home for the Aged, has been part of this sector for more than 10 years, and has seen the progress that we have made over this time. She, too, welcomes the Bill as a timely move that provides clarity to the sector and reaffirms our collective commitment towards the welfare and overall well-being of residents.

We will put in place measures to ensure residents are not placed at risk of harm in the Home. Firstly, it will be mandatory for all licensees, key appointment holders, persons-in-charge, staff and other individuals who perform prescribed duties, such as vendors who provide direct care to residents, to undergo a suitability assessment.

This requirement is not new to most of the Home operators. Today, suitability assessments already apply to staff in our funded Homes, as well as licensees and staff in our licensed Homes.

Under the Bill, we will extend this practice to all other Homes. We want to be sure that only individuals with good standing are allowed to be deployed in the Homes. This would ensure continuity of Home operations and continuity of care for residents within.

In so doing, we can also provide assurance to residents, their family members as well as operators that individuals deployed in these Homes can be trusted to provide quality care to residents.

Second, the use of reasonable force or mechanical restraints is prohibited unless under specified circumstances.

Today, some residents may exhibit aggressive or challenging behaviours due to underlying root causes, such as psychiatric conditions. These behaviours may put them at risk of harming themselves or others.

Under strictly defined circumstances, the use of reasonable force and/or mechanical restraints by properly trained staff could help to ensure that residents do not further harm themselves, or other persons in the Home, like fellow residents or staff.

We take a firm stance against any unauthorised or excessive use of force or mechanical restraints. Therefore, MSF will set out the parameters within which the use of force or mechanical restraints would be permitted under the Bill, to deter against any potential forms of abuse.

Under the Bill, MSF will appoint a Board of Visitors to conduct independent checks on social residential homes. The Board of Visitors comprises professionals who complement MSF’s licensing inspections to ensure that residents reside in safe and sanitary premises.

The Board of Visitors visits Homes regularly to check on its premises, speak to residents and provide third-party feedback to MSF on the Home’s living conditions and standards of care. They will also share best practices with the Homes they visit.

Today, some Homes, such as Welfare Homes and Children’s Homes, are already visited regularly by a Board of Visitors and have benefited from such visits. For Marymount Centre, a Children’s Home, these visits have provided a fresh perspective on the Home’s operations and enabled them to identify areas for improvement. For Bukit Batok Home for the Aged, their staff have come to regard such visits as invaluable opportunities for learning of best practices from other Homes. We will therefore extend this good practice to other Homes through this Bill.

The third key area focuses on a comprehensive enforcement framework to deter against errant operators.

To be clear, our Homes have been providing good care to residents. We have worked well with operators to continuously review the care provided and where needed, made operational adjustments to uphold quality care. Nonetheless, we do not take for granted that egregious incidents will never happen in our Homes. Our residents are highly vulnerable and we need effective levers to prevent and manage incidents, should they occur. Therefore, under this Bill, we have introduced a comprehensive enforcement framework as a deterrent against errant operators.

Under the Bill, MSF may take a range of regulatory action against errant operators. As part of a graduated approach to enforcement, we have introduced a range of tools that will allow us to take regulatory actions that correspond to the degree of harm caused.

Regulatory actions under the existing licensing regimes in the Homes for the Aged Act and Children and Young Persons Act are limited. Today, we can revoke a licence if a regulatory breach has occurred. However, some regulatory breaches could be minor and need not warrant a revocation of licence. Instead, it may be more appropriate to shorten the Home’s licence tenure and allow the Home a chance to rectify the breach. We are not able to do so today.

It is therefore timely for MSF to update our suite of regulatory actions. Under the Social Residential Homes Bill, in addition to the revocation of licence, we can also modify, shorten, or suspend licences, and these would be more appropriate for less severe breaches. MSF may also pursue criminal penalties for more serious contraventions.

Today, residents in our Homes are already protected under other legislation, such as the Children and Young Persons Act, and the Penal Code. MSF also closely manages our funded homes through funding agreements, to make sure residents are safe and well.

Under the Social Residential Homes Bill, we have taken the opportunity to review the penalty quanta to be imposed for egregious offences. For example, under MSF’s Homes for the Aged Act, operating a Sheltered Home without a licence may warrant a fine of no more than $5,000, or imprisonment for no more than two years, or both. This is the maximum penalty that can be imposed.

Under this Bill, the offence of operating a Home without a licence may now warrant a fine of no more than $100,000, with no change to the maximum jail term. This signals the importance of the safety and well-being of residents, who are vulnerable.

We recognise that Homes have concerns about the penalties under this Bill. Many operators in this space are driven by a sense of compassion and a deep sense of social responsibility, and many of their Board members are themselves volunteers.

First and foremost, MSF will take a developmental and supportive stance. Our goal is not to be punitive at the outset, but to support Homes in meeting standards that safeguard the well-being of their residents.

We intend to work closely with Homes to uplift the sector. To operators of live-in care facilities who are uncertain about their licensing obligations, we encourage you to reach out to MSF for support, as we transition to this new framework.

Further, to assuage Homes’ concerns, we will set out the responsibilities of each stakeholder in our Regulations and Codes of Practice. Homes will be consulted in this exercise conducted later this year.

MSF will also be able to issue step-in orders to temporarily take over a failing operator’s Home for continuity of care for residents.

As far as possible, MSF will work closely with operators to promptly resolve operational issues. However, we recognise that some operators may not be able do so even with other measures, such as capability building and regulatory action, in place. We must therefore have a fallback plan to minimise disruption and ensure the safety, welfare or well-being of the residents in the Home. This is when step-in powers will be activated.

This may take the form of appointing a third party to advise the licensee on the Home’s operations or a temporary transfer of residents to another Home. Should there be a need, MSF may also appoint another operator to temporarily take over operations to ensure continuity of care for residents.

MSF will adopt a risk-based regulatory approach. As a start, we will license social residential homes that provide long-term and 24/7 residential care. Homes that fall under the scope of the Social Residential Homes Bill are Adult Disability Homes, which includes Adult Disability Hostels, Homes for Children and Young Persons which comprises Children’s Homes and Children Disability Homes, Sheltered Homes and Welfare Homes. Operators whose homes fall under this scope have been consulted and notified of our intent to license the respective Homes. For other operators who are unsure if you fall under the scope of the Bill, please step forward to check with us in MSF.

Should the needs of clients in other Home types evolve, we will review whether to extend the licensing regime to these Homes as well. Consultations with the relevant stakeholders will be carried out as part of these reviews.

To support operators in transitioning to a new licensing regime, MSF and the National Council of Social Service (NCSS) have set aside a $33 million Transition Support Package for all social residential homes that will be licensed under this Bill. This is on top of ongoing adjustments to our programme funding for social residential homes. With this funding, Homes will be able to invest in:

Training for staff in critical areas such as management of violent behaviours by residents. This will help to keep both residents and staff in our Homes safe.

Updating or installing CCTV systems, to enable Homes to better monitor the safety of residents. This will also function as a deterrent against any form of abuse against residents or staff.

Change management efforts, such as planning and reviewing internal work processes, to adhere to the regulatory requirements under this Bill.

The Transition Support Package has been well-received by Home operators. The components of this package were designed based on operators’ feedback and suggestions on support that would help them transition successfully to the new licensing regime.

To our Home operators, we are committed to supporting you in this journey. Besides the Transition Support Package, MSF will also offer developmental consultations to social residential homes. These developmental consultations form a key part of our pre-implementation preparation. They will provide operators with greater clarity on key areas of improvement that they will need to focus on as they prepare to onboard the new licensing regime. It will also enable MSF to provide operators with more targeted support and guidance under this Bill.

I have shared extensively about the enhanced safeguards for residents’ safety and well-being that we will introduce under this Bill. I will now touch on what we are doing for the Homes’ staff.

The safety and well-being of staff are equally important to us. MSF adopts a zero-tolerance policy towards abuse or harassment of staff. Staff in these Homes are “public service workers” under the Protection from Harassment Act 2014 and as such, will receive enhanced protection under that Act. Any person who abuses staff in the Homes can also be taken to task under the Penal Code 1871.

Beyond the Bill, MSF and NCSS will continue to work closely with the sector to develop a strong and resilient social service workforce.

I want to convey my heartfelt appreciation to all staff working in our Homes. To all the dedicated staff, we want to express our deepest gratitude because we know your work is not easy. The challenges you face require strength, passion and most of all, compassion. The residents rely on you and your care, and I want to assure you that your contributions are appreciated every single day, even though the residents may not say it. We value your hard work and contributions and will continue to invest in your growth and well-being.

We regularly review the NCSS Skills and Salary Guidelines and work with Social Service Agencies to ensure that salaries in the sector are competitive with comparable roles in competing markets.

Your professional development matters to us. We have charted progression pathways through the Skills Framework for Social Service and will continue to provide support for staff to be equipped with the necessary competencies to upskill themselves and effectively deliver care.

We recognise that work in the social services can be demanding, which is why we are providing resources to both employers and employees. For instance, NCSS works closely with social service agencies to develop stronger organisational capabilities and create a supportive workplace environment. While we work to equip and empower leaders in social service agencies to create a supportive work environment, social service employees can also access well-being support resources provided by NCSS.

Sir, let me conclude. This Bill reflects the Government’s commitment to uplift and strengthen support for the most vulnerable amongst us, in partnership with our community partners.

The Bill builds upon past efforts by the Government and the social residential home operators to provide good quality care for these residents. We will continue to work closely with Homes to achieve our collective vision to care for the vulnerable in our society, to realise our ambition for a caring Singapore where no one is left behind.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.

2.59 pm

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Speaker, social residential homes play an essential role in our society, providing a sanctuary for many of our elderly and vulnerable citizens.

First, let us take a moment to appreciate the progress that Singapore has made in establishing a framework of care within our social residential homes. These facilities are often staffed with trained and dedicated caregivers. And many have adopted person-centred care practices that focus on the individual needs, preferences and dignity of their residents.

However, there is still much work to be done. Standards of care can vary significantly from one home to another, depending largely on the resources, training and infrastructure of the facility. While some residential homes provide exemplary care, others fall short in key areas such as staffing, training and the availability of specialised care for those with dementia, physical disability or other chronic conditions.

It is therefore vital that we assess and enhance the standards of care in these facilities, confront the myriad challenges they face and prepare for the future demand that will inevitably arise from our changing population demographics.

Sir, social residential homes face numerous challenges that threaten their ability to maintain high standards of care. One of the more pressing issues is the acute shortage of skilled caregivers. As our population ages, the demand for caregiving services is expected to increase, yet, we struggle to recruit and retain competent staff. Low wages, high job demands and difficult working conditions contribute to high turnover rates that would inevitably compromise the quality of care residents receive.

Additionally, financial sustainability is a recurrent concern. Many homes rely heavily on Government funding, donations and the goodwill of volunteerism. As the economic landscape fluctuates, securing the necessary funds to maintain and improve these homes becomes increasingly challenging. This precarious financial situation can lead to a detrimental ripple effect on both the quality of care and the emotional well-being of the residents.

By 2030, Singapore will have one in four residents above the age of 65. We can expect this growing elderly population to lead to an increased demand for social residential homes. The complexity of caregiving will escalate, necessitating not only more beds but also more robust support systems that can cater to an ageing population with diverse needs. This Bill is, therefore, timely as we proactively address the structure and function of our social residential homes to ensure they can meet both present and future needs and challenges. However, I have some questions and suggestions.

Sir, the Bill proposes to increase penalties significantly. The penalty for unauthorised operation of a home is proposed to increase from the current maximum fine of $5,000 and/or up to two years of imprisonment; to a maximum fine of $100,000 and/or up to two years of imprisonment. I would like to ask, what the rationale was behind increasing the penalties by 20-fold and whether such a hefty fine is reasonable, with respect to the level of harm done.

Will MSF be making clear the responsibilities and liabilities of the board members of these homes, many of whom are volunteers? My concern is that the sharp increase in penalties may result in a chilling effect that deters volunteers from serving on the boards of the social residential homes.

Sir, my next two points pertain to standards and regulatory costs. Social residential homes are currently required to comply with sector-specific requirements based on their service models. I would like to ask how have such sector-specific standards changed over the years since the various types of homes were set up and how does MSF see the different standards evolving as we consolidate all the various requirements under one licensing regime? For example, will we see a lower caregiver-to-residents ratio?

With all homes grappling with a lean workforce, will the new licensing requirements lead to a higher regulatory cost? What is the expected increase in costs that MSF projects will be passed down to consumers? Will the one-off Transition Support Package that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned in his opening speech be sufficient in helping the homes transit to the new licensing regime, especially for homes with much lesser resources? Can MSF consider a stepped-down support package to help defray the expected increases in recurring operational costs for a few more additional years?

Sir, I understand that the Singapore Boys' Home and Singapore Girls' Home are not covered under this Bill. What are the reasons for excluding them out of the ambit of this regulatory regime? Are the Boys' and Girls' Homes subject to the same standards as those provided under this Bill? Who is responsible for ensuring the quality of care at these homes?

Sir, the proposed provisions make clear the parameters within which a staff may use reasonable force and mechanical restraints on a resident, for the safety of other residents and staff working in the home. A staff who causes grievous hurt or harm to a resident arising from the use of excessive force or unauthorised forms of restraints can be subjected to criminal penalties under the Penal Code; and regulatory actions under the Act.

What is reasonable force may differ from person to person and proper training is, therefore, crucial to ensure that the staff assigned to conduct such functions are equipped to do so. I would like to ask if MSF has data on the number of cases of social residential home staff that have been investigated and taken to task for use of excessive force over the past 10 years.

Can MSF share more details about how such cases get picked up for investigation? Is there a whistle-blowing channel for family members or members of public to report any perceived use of excessive force? Will there be an ombudsman to investigate such reports?

Sir, the proposed provisions will also empower MSF to issue a step-in order to completely or partially takeover a failing social residential home to ensure a continuity of care for residents. I would like to ask how many such homes have required a change of operators over the past 10 years? In the event of MSF taking over or asking another operator to take over a failing facility, how does MSF intend to ensure a smooth transition, especially for the affected staff and the residents involved?

Does MSF have a projection on the number of social residential homes that will be required in the next 10 years? What is the projected number of staff needed to operate these homes? Will MSF consider managing some of these facilities directly, given the amount of resources required?

Sir, in closing, I would like to commend the MSF team and the many caregivers in our social residential homes for the tireless and often difficult work in providing round-the-clock care for our vulnerable residents. We must continue to invest in comprehensive training and continuous professional development for these caregivers. Partnering with educational institutions and industry experts can help equip caregivers with the necessary skills and knowledge to provide exceptional care.

To retain skilled workers, we must offer competitive salaries, benefits and support systems. Initiatives, such as mental health support for caregivers and career development opportunities, can contribute to staff satisfaction and retention.

We should also explore diversified funding models that go beyond Government dependence. Increased collaboration with the private sector and philanthropic organisations can help create a more sustainable financial ecosystem for these homes and I hope the Government can play a useful matchmaker role in this.

The homes should also be encouraged to leverage technology to improve care delivery. From telemedicine to digital health monitoring, innovative solutions can enhance the quality of care and keep residents connected with their loved ones. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

3.09 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Speaker, under the Social Residential Homes Bill, social residential homes include any premises they are used to provide residential accommodation to persons who require care or social intervention. We are told that MSF oversees a range of social residential homes that provide short- to long-term residential care to different residential profiles.

We are told that MSF has taken feedback from Children's Homes, Children's Disability Homes, Sheltered Homes, Welfare Homes, Adult Disability Homes and Adult Disability Hostels, and MSF will support 61 social residential homes to be licensed under this Bill, once passed, to meet the requirements of the Bill. This Bill aims to codify and harmonise existing standards under a common framework to enable Singaporeans in these homes to benefit from a robust regulatory regime.

Mr Speaker, while I welcome the introduction of this Bill and the regime, I would like to seek some clarifications.

Minister Masagos mentioned on 10 March 2025 that MSF has worked closely with social residential homes to raise standards of care for residents and that the new licensing regime is proposed to ensure the safety and wellness of these residents. May I clarify if MSF has uncovered uneven standards of care among these homes, requiring the proposed increase and harmonisation of regulations under this Bill? And, if so, what are some of these shortfalls and the reasons behind them?

Second, a licensing regime, while well-intentioned, also involves the meeting of Government-mandated standards in staffing requirements and other service quality matters. This will involve both upfront and recurrent costs on the part of social service agencies operating these homes. May I know how MSF is reviewing its funding arrangements with these social service agencies, whom I believe would have shared their feedback on their operational challenges, especially in light of the requirements of the new regime.

Third, staffing requirements are a common concern shared by many social service agencies that manage MSF-funded programmes. The resident or client profile of MSF-funded programmes, especially those in residential programmes, is often challenging and complex.

Running a social residential home is also a labour-intensive operation, requiring dedicated staff whose pay often does not commensurate with their work. Understaffing and staff burnout often lead to poor service and care standards. May I clarify whether MSF has received feedback from social service agencies running these residential homes for a lower staff-resident ratio and how is the Government going to provide more support for the manpower manning in the social residential homes, which is critical to the requirements and improvements expected under this Bill, even if this may require more funding support?

The Minister has also said that this Bill provides for the possibility of homes evolving to meet residents needs where different client profiles could be housed together. As I have mentioned earlier about challenging client profiles, may I clarify the rationale behind MSF considering the possibility of housing different client profiles together? Can the Minister elaborate with some details on this? While there could be economies of scale from a bureaucratic perspective; from the operational perspective, it could be a layering of one challenge onto another.

I hope MSF will adopt a consultative approach with social service agencies before imposing requirements that, if not appropriately funded, may be difficult to meet.

We are also told that MSF will support all social residential homes licensed under this Bill with a one-off transition support package. For social residential homes seeking to be licensed for the first time, MSF will also offer pre-licensing checks to identify areas for improvement prior to implementation. Granted that the 61 social residential homes may consist of organisations of different sizes, resources or strengths. May I ask, what does the transition support package consist and would the support vary depending on the size of the organisation or even the extent of assistance as required by specific organisations, rather than a one-size-fits-all?

I also hope that the Ministry will exercise sufficient flexibility so that all social residential homes have sufficient time and resources to make the necessary conversion to adapt to the new regulatory regime without being penalised, especially social residential homes who may have been relatively constrained by their resources.

We should ensure that the welfare of the clients in these social residential homes will remain the top priority, even as social service agencies convert and adjust to the requirements of the new regime. Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my questions, I support this Bill, which is a step in the right direction and I hope that MSF will consider the concerns I have raised.

Mr Speaker: Ms Ng Ling Ling.

3.15 pm

Ms Ng Ling Ling: Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Social Residential Homes Bill. About 10 years ago, when I was the managing director of Community Chest in NCSS, I remember being invited by MSF colleagues then to visit a social residential home run by a charitable social service agency, looking after young children who had experienced severe abuses, including verbal, physical and sexual transgressions committed against them.

I was carefully prepared by MSF for the visit, so as not to be shocked by behaviours, such as punching fists in the walls and others, before I was brought to visit the Home, as MSF colleagues wanted to discuss fundraising required to improve the care model of these children. While I was prepared for the worst, what greeted me at the Home – specifically in a room where some of the children were having tuition for their homework – were innocent young faces, not unlike that of my own son who was about the same age as these children then.

All I could conclude from that visit was that these children were born in the wrong families and wrong homes. What I was thankful for after the visit was an anonymous donor, whom I still do not know the identity of, who eventually donated half a million dollars to Community Chest through a former NCSS Board member and helped MSF pilot a better care model for these children.

Sir, social residential homes in Singapore house some of the most vulnerable Singaporeans of all ages, genders, race and religions. A strong legislative framework and rules to safeguard their living are thus extremely important and necessary. According to MSF, there are currently 61 such Homes run by various social service agencies. They range from Children's Homes, Homes for the Disabled, Aged Homes, Welfare Homes for Women and six Homes, such as Angsana, Banyan, Meranti Home in Pelangi Village in my Jalan Kayu constituency for the destitute, some of whom suffer from mental illnesses.

These Homes provide their residents with 24-hour by seven days residential accommodation and care as their own families or homes can no longer house them for a variety of reasons, often complex and not easy to resolve. This Social Residential Homes Bill which codifies the rules and changes that are important for the protection of how the Homes should be run for the welfare and well-being of these vulnerable residents, our fellow Singaporeans, is thus much needed. I strongly support the Bill, but will like to raise three areas for clarifications and suggestions.

Firstly, on the Transition Support Package of $33 million one-off transition amount for training, safety and capability building, for example, to install CCTV systems for safety purposes, I wonder if MSF should not let this be just a one-time transition funding support, but instead, set up a more committed long-term capability fund, similar to the successful multi-year VWO Capability Fund (VCF) that MSF and NCSS are both experienced in designing, administering, evaluating and extending when the needs remain. I have seen VCF alleviate the standards and capabilities of many social service agencies delivering strategic and critical programmes over more than a decade of serving in the social service sector in my work at NCSS.

The social service agencies like Metta Welfare Association (Metta), Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore (MINDS), Thye Hua Kwan, St Andrew's, Asian Women Welfare Association (AWWA), TOUCH, Pertapis and Trybe, just to name a few, running social residential homes will know well that these Homes are some of the hardest programmes that they need to deliver among their range of social service programmes that they provide. Helping them build standards, staff competencies and operational capabilities should not be a one-off effort but a long-term commitment.

Another help that MSF and NCSS should seriously consider is the facilitation for better use of public funds to help these social service agencies, such as in the bulk procurement for common equipment like CCTV systems, which can be very costly if each Home procures on its own.

Next, on clarifying responsibilities of board members and volunteers. I note that the Bill provides for powers for MSF to issue Codes of Practices to codify standards of care, including governance, management of premises, resident management and incident management in the Homes. Breach of these Codes of Practices may result in regulatory actions for all social residential homes, irrespective of whether they are funded by MSF or not.

The Bill also provides for comprehensive framework to deter errant operators, where MSF may take regulatory actions and pursue criminal penalties against errant and/or failing social residential homes operators. MSF may also issue step-in orders to temporarily take over a failing operator's social residential home to ensure continuity of care. Further, MSF has introduced a new licensing regime with criminal penalties and regulatory actions revised to be proportionate to comparable offences under other Acts, such as the Healthcare Services Act.

While I appreciate the good intentions to safeguard residents and the running such Homes through these changes, I would like to clarify at what level in MSF will the Codes of Practices, that can be issued from time to time with regulatory penalties for non-compliance, be approved. I understand that such codes may contain more details and requirements on operators than what the Bill has shown. Again, how does MSF strike a balance, considering the capabilities of the operators, and how will potential penalties for breaches be informed to the operators in each Code issued?

I know of several friends in busy professions who are serving voluntarily on the Boards of the social service agencies running some of these social residential homes out of care and concerns for these vulnerable residents. They are unsure how the stiffer regulatory penalties will be imposed on the Board members, individually or collectively, in situations of breaches that are not of their doing. They asked what are the implications on the Board, the management and the staff, and how will MSF assess where the buck stops.

Lastly, on long-term capacity and capability building, I cannot empathise more with the challenges that the social service agencies running these homes face in manpower recruitment, retention and development. Many of them are highly reliant on foreign staff as it is difficult to get Singaporeans to work in many of the roles needed to run such Homes.

On the screening of foreign staff, I will like to ask how is MSF helping the agencies to ensure if the background checks of these staff are true and correct, especially if they come from countries that may have less developed systems of records on criminal or civil acts of delinquency, abuse or violence.

I would like to take a moment to extend my deep appreciation to Singaporeans who volunteer to be on the Board of Visitors and Case Review Committees of these social residential homes, especially those who visit the residents on a monthly frequency. From my visits of some of these Homes over the years that I worked in NCSS, I have seen the most vulnerable of vulnerable Singaporeans living in them.

Many of them, children and seniors included, may not be able to articulate their needs, given their disabilities or trauma that they have experienced unless a responsible adult visits them regularly and is observant of their behaviours and moods. The Board of Visitors forms an essential protective channel to give voices to some of these voiceless residents. I urge MSF to step up in expanding the group of the Board of Visitors for these Homes and encourage Singaporeans who have the compassion and commitment to step up and volunteer in these important roles.

Each of the 61 Homes need good Singaporeans who are more privileged to be their volunteers, to serve on their Boards of Visitors and to be donors, like the anonymous donor that I mentioned, who had given to the Community Chest, in my opening paragraph.

My final appeal is to the Government, including the Ministry of Finance, to consider providing more budgets for MSF to gradually convert these social residential homes for the vulnerable to purpose-built Homes, like what the Ministry of Education (MOE) did for special education (SPED) schools over the past decades. MOE's efforts with the SPED schools have transformed what used to be disused and barely retrofitted SPED schools that I visited in the early 2000s, when I first entered the social service sector, to state-of-the-art well designed SPED Schools, like Pathlight School, that we see today in the Ang Mo Kio Group Representation Constituency where I serve as a Member of Parliament.

When the homes of our most vulnerable of the vulnerable Singaporeans, the least, the last and the lost are much like better homes that most Singaporeans experience through the decades as Singapore matures as a highly developed nation. I think then, we can truly be proud to bear the hallmark of a strong and caring nation who leaves no one behind. With that Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

3.25 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, today, we are here to discuss a Bill that speaks to the very heart of who we are as a society. The Social Residential Homes Bill is about care, dignity and responsibility. It is about how we treat the most vulnerable amongst us – our children, seniors, disabled – those who, for whatever reason, cannot care for themselves.

Some of these individuals have loving families who simply do not have the means or ability to provide round-the-clock care. Others have no one – no family, no safety net, no place to call home, except for these social residential homes. Their well-being, their safety, their quality of life, all of it rests on the people who run and work in these facilities. That is a profound responsibility. And it is our duty to make sure that responsibility is met – not just with good intentions, but with real, enforceable standards that ensure quality care.

This Bill takes important steps. But the real question before us today is this: are we setting the highest possible standards? And more importantly, are we making sure that those standards are upheld every single day, for every single resident? I seek several clarifications.

First, Mr Speaker, Sir, we all know that Singapore is ageing. By 2030, one in four Singaporeans will be over the age of 65. That is just six years away. That means more people will need affordable, accessible residential care. This Bill introduces a licensing framework, which is good. But let us be clear – this is only useful, if these homes are accessible to the intended users. What is the plan to ensure that we have enough Homes to meet the growing demand in the next decade? Have we mapped out where these Homes are needed most? Are they evenly distributed, or are we going to see some areas well-served while others are left behind?

The Bill also gives the Director-General the power to set capacity limits for social residential homes. I understand the need to prevent overcrowding. Conversely, how do we make sure we are not turning people away because there are simply not enough beds?

We should also be encouraging community and private-sector efforts to fill the gaps. Could we introduce more incentives for non-profit organisations and businesses to build more Homes where they are needed most? Because no one – no senior, no vulnerable person – should have to struggle just to find a place to live with dignity.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my next point is about quality of care, because at the end of the day, it is not just about having a bed to sleep in. It is about having a home where residents are treated with respect, compassion and real care.

This Bill gives the Director-General the power to set licensing conditions, but nowhere does it say that the Homes must have minimum staffing ratios. Let me put this simply: if there are not enough caregivers, the residents will suffer. In hospitals, there are nurse-to-patient ratios. Why should it be any different in social residential homes, where people need daily assistance with everything, from eating to moving to managing their mental well-being?

We also need to talk about the people who do the work. Many caregivers in these Homes are foreign workers or volunteers. They are the ones feeding, bathing and caring for residents. But are we making sure that they are properly trained? Are we paying them fairly? And are we providing them with enough support, so they do not burn out? Because if we do not take care of them, they would not be able to take care of our residents.

We also have to ask: will the Government issue more work passes for this sector to ensure we have enough trained caregivers? Will the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) also relax the local-to-Work Permit holder ratios for this sector? Because care work is essential work. And we need to start treating it that way.

Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, regulations are only as strong as the enforcement behind them. This Bill gives the Government the power to revoke the licences of those homes which fail to meet the standards. That is important. However, nowhere does it say that violations must be made public. If a home is failing its residents, should not the families have the right to know? Should not there be a public rating or inspection system, like we have for food establishments, so people can make informed choices?

And what about step-in orders? This Bill allows the Government to take over a failing Home, under section 27, but it does not tell us when that will happen. What are the criteria? How bad does a home have to be, before action is taken? Who will take over the day-to-day operations after the takeover?

The Bill also introduces Boards of Visitors to check on homes. That is a good step. But who will be on these boards? Will they be independent committee members or just Government appointees?

Finally, residents and families need a clear feedback mechanism. Right now, if a resident or their family has concerns, where do they go? Who do they call? Should there be a public hotline or an independent mediator to handle grievances fairly and transparently? Because transparency builds trust, and if we want families to feel safe placing their loved ones in these homes, trust is essential.

Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, at its core, this Bill is about people. Not numbers, not statistics. People. Residents should have a voice in how these Homes are run. Could we establish feedback channels so that they can participate in decisions that affect their daily lives?

This Bill also restricts the publication of information about residents under section 38, and while privacy is important, does this mean whistle-blowers cannot report poor conditions? How do we balance privacy with accountability? And can we go a step further and introduce a Residents’ Bill of Rights, like some other countries have, to guarantee dignity, choice and respect for every resident?

Consequently, a social residential home should not just be a place to stay. It should be a place to live with dignity.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, at the heart of this Bill lies a simple but profound question – how do we care for those who have no one else to care for them? Because the true strength of our society is not found in how far the most successful can go, but in how well we care for those who struggle, those who are vulnerable and those who are left behind.

Right now, across Singapore, there are seniors, persons with disabilities and individuals without families who depend on social residential homes for their well-being. They are not just names in a system. They are our mothers and fathers, our sisters and brothers. Some of them are even workers who built this nation, who spent their years caring for others, contributing to society. And now, the question before us is – are we doing enough to care for them?

This Bill is a step forward. It creates a licensing system. It introduces new regulations. But let us be honest, a licence alone does not build a caring home. A set of rules is not the same as a system that truly cares. That is why we must go further.

First, we must plan for the future. Singapore is ageing. The demand for care will only grow. We need a roadmap, not just for today, but for the next 10 to 20 years, so that every Singaporean in need has a place to turn to.

Second, quality care must be more than just words on a page. We need minimum staffing ratios so that every resident gets the attention they deserve. We need real mental health support for caregivers because care must go beyond just physical needs. And we must value and support our caregivers because if we do not care for them, they will not be able to care for our loved ones.

Third, transparency builds trust. If a home is failing, families deserve to know. If the Government needs to intervene, there must be clear, objective rules on when and how that happens. We need public accountability, real oversight and a complaint system that works.

And fourth, we must protect the dignity and rights of residents. No one should feel like they have lost their freedom or their voice just because they need care. No one should feel like they are trapped in an institution when they should feel at home.

This is not just about passing a Bill. This is about living our values. If we say we want to build an inclusive, caring and just society, then we have to mean it. We have to live it. This is what Forward Singapore is about. Not just economic growth, but ensuring every Singaporean matters, every Singaporean has dignity and every Singaporean belongs. Because in Singapore, we do not leave people behind. We lift them up.

One day, when history looks back at this moment, we would not be judged by the regulations we wrote but by the lives we touched, the dignity we restored and the care we gave. Let us get this right. I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

3.34 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill proposes to strengthen safeguards for the safety, welfare and well-being of residents in social residential homes. The Bill introduces a licensing framework for social residential homes, which raises standards of care and strengthens enforcement when these standards are not met.

I have three points of clarifications to raise.

My first clarification is on the approval required to deploy individuals to carry out certain prescribed duties. Under section 19, prior approval of the Director-General is required to deploy an individual to carry out certain prescribed duties. During the public consultation on the Bill, respondents expressed concerns about reduced autonomy and potential hiring delays. MSF responded that it will work closely with the social residential homes to streamline the approval process and partner the social residential homes in recruitment planning. Given that the social residential homes often already face manpower challenges from high staff turnover, the new requirement for pre-approval may further constrain the social residential homes already limited manpower resources.

Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share the duties that are likely to require pre-approval for deployment? Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share the likely timeframe for such pre-approval? Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary also share more details on the approval process and how it will support the social residential homes in recruitment planning?

My second clarification is on step-in arrangements. Part 6 of the Bill provides for step-in arrangements for licensees where necessary to ensure the safety, welfare and well-being of residents. The step-in arrangements may include appointing another individual to be the person-in-charge of the social residential home, appointing another licensee to operate the social residential home or transferring residents to another social residential home. These are exceptional powers that should be used as a last resort. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share whether MSF will have a framework for deciding when the step-in powers will be exercised and which arrangements will be ordered?

For step-in arrangements involving another licensee, can MSF also share how it will prepare another licensee to take over the operations or residents of another social residential home? This is especially given that many social residential homes may not be operating with significant spare capacity. For instance, will there be a process for MSF to gradually prepare other social residential homes to support step-in arrangements where an social residential home operator appears unable or unwilling to comply with regulatory actions?

My final clarification is on whistle-blowing protections under the Bill. Section 53 provides that a person who suspects that an offence has been committed may notify an inspecting officer of the relevant facts and circumstances. It also provides that the identity of the person is protected from disclosure in proceedings. However, a person who suspects an offence relating to a social residential home may not necessarily have access to or make the report to an inspecting officer. An informer may instead make the report to a Police officer or any other MSF officer.

Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, as long as the complaint relates to an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the identity of the informer is protected. It does not matter whether the report was made to the Police or the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau.

Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify whether an individual who reports an offence under the Bill to the Police will be similarly protected by the whistle-blowing protections under section 53? If not, what is the rationale for limiting the protection to individuals who make the report specifically to an inspecting officer?

Notwithstanding these clarifications, Sir, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua.

3.38 pm

Mr Eric Chua: Mr Speaker, I thank the Members for the robust debate and support for the Social Residential Homes Bill. Let me now respond to the Members’ questions and suggestions.

Firstly, on measures to ensure residents’ safety and well-being. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked why MSF does not stipulate minimum staffing ratios for Homes in the Bill. Today, all Homes funded by MSF, which includes most Homes licensed under the existing Homes for the Aged Act and Children and Young Persons Act, need to abide by minimum staffing ratios set out by MSF. This Bill will allow MSF to set out minimum staffing ratios for all licensed Homes.

Mr Melvin Yong also asked about the evolution of sector standards over the years. As mentioned in my opening speech, we have enhanced our care models. In addition to Children’s Homes, Adult Disability Homes, Sheltered Homes and Welfare Homes have also adopted a tiered approach to provide more intensive care and targeted support to residents with higher care needs. As the sector continues to grow, our standards of care will also evolve to meet changing needs.

Mr Louis Ng asked about the types of duties carried out by individuals who require MSF’s approval prior to deployment in the Home. Broadly, these duties would include first, those relating to the overall governance, leadership and management of the Home, such as management of the Home’s financial accounts. We want to be sure that any individual who takes on any leadership or management responsibilities, such as key appointment holders and person-in-charge, is of good standing.

Second, those involving direct unsupervised contact with residents, such as helping residents who are less mobile with their personal hygiene and meals. This is so that we do not place vulnerable residents at undue risk of harm through exposure to individuals with a record of egregious offences.

Mr Ng also asked how long the pre-approval would take and also, support for Homes with recruitment planning. Generally, we endeavour to inform Homes of the outcome of the assessment within two weeks. Concurrently, MSF is reviewing ways to complete the process even faster, including through streamlining or automating some parts of the suitability assessment processes.

Ms Ng Ling Ling asked about the accuracy of background checks on foreign staff. Under this Bill, all prospective foreign staff in licensed Homes will be required to submit a self-declaration if they had committed any offence in any country, as specified by MOM. If we find out that a false declaration had been made, the individual may be liable to regulatory actions under the Bill, such as cancellation of approval to work in the Home, and/or prosecution under the Penal Code.

Mr Yong asked about the number of cases of Home staff that were investigated and taken to task for excessive use of force. Such cases are fortunately uncommon. Over the 2020 to 2024 period, MSF received an average of six reports per year on resident abuse, including that of excessive use of force. Several were not substantiated, and where substantiated, staff were taken to task. MSF adopts a zero-tolerance approach towards the use of excessive force on our residents and will thoroughly investigate these allegations.

Mr Yip suggested creating a public rating system for Homes, so that family members and the public will be made aware if a Home is performing poorly. To address the Member’s underlying concern on accountability, MSF works closely with Homes in the case of incidents to ensure that residents and their family members are aware of the situation, what is being done to address the concerns and to involve them in decisions regarding their care arrangements, where possible. We will consider practices in other countries to strengthen public accountability. The goal should be to help the Homes enhance their performance and accountability, and create a culture of continual improvement.

Mr Yip and Mr Yong would also be assured to know that we have multiple channels in place for residents and family members to provide feedback on Homes. A Board of Visitors consisting of independent members of the community, such as private and social sector professionals, will visit Homes at least once a quarter. The Board of Visitors may also visit certain Homes more frequently, if there is a need to monitor them more closely. These visits are unannounced to enable the Board of Visitors to check on residents’ living conditions and speak with residents to hear any concerns they may have.

Residents and their family members may also provide their feedback to MSF via our hotline or email. Through these channels, we can promptly address concerns and foster greater accountability from Homes.

Mr Dennis Tan asked if there were any shortfalls or uneven standards of care across the Homes. As mentioned in my opening speech earlier, MSF introduced this Bill to codify the good progress that has been made in raising the quality of care over the years. It is not in response to uneven standards of care or any incidents of a serious nature.

Mr Yong raised a few questions on the Singapore Boys’ Home and Singapore Girls’ Home. In particular, the reasons for excluding them from this Bill, whether these Homes are subjected to the same standards in this Bill and who is responsible for ensuring the quality of care in these Homes.

The Singapore Boys’ Home and the Singapore Girls’ Home are operated by the Government and are excluded from the licensing regime under this Bill. However, this does not mean that they do not need to meet the standards of care. In fact, they are held to the same standards, if not higher. To ensure good quality care is provided in the Singapore Boys’ Home and Singapore Girls’ Home, these Homes are subjected to independent inspections, as well as regular visits by a Review Board. Similar to the Board of Visitors, the Review Board comprises independent members of the community, who review the living standards and standards of care in these Homes.

Next, I will address the queries raised on the enforcement framework against errant operators.

Mr Louis Ng and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if MSF will have a framework to decide when the step-in powers will be exercised and which arrangements will be ordered. The answer to this is yes. In determining when and how to exercise the step-in powers, MSF will thoroughly assess the facts of each case, such as the severity of harm caused to residents. I wish to emphasise that these step-in powers are meant to be a measure of last resort, after all other avenues are exhausted. Accordingly, the use of step-in powers will cease once the operations of the affected home have stabilised and we are assured of the residents' safety and wellbeing.

Mr Yong asked about the number of homes that have required a change of operators in the past 10 years. Thus far, only one home underwent a change of operator as the operator had decided not to continue running the home following a thorough evaluation of the organisation's resources and strategic direction. MSF, the affected home as well as the incoming home operator worked closely to ensure a smooth transition for staff and continuity of care for residents.

Mr Ng and Mr Yong also asked how MSF would prepare other licensed homes to take over the operations or residents of a failing home. MSF will work closely with both the incoming and outgoing operators to facilitate the handover processes, including the care arrangements for residents during the step-in period. We will also ensure that capacity is sufficient. Our priority is to ensure that the continuity of care for residents in the affected home is assured.

To be clear, activating another licensed home to step-in is only one option that MSF may take under step-in powers. Other options, include appointing a third-party to advise the licensee on the home's operations or revoking the appointment of an existing key appointment holder and reappointing another individual to take over the responsibilities.

Mr Ng asked whether whistle-blowing protections under clause 53 apply to individuals who report offences under the Bill to the Police. The whistle-blower will be referred to the MSF inspecting officers to assist investigations of the offence and will be conferred protection under clause 53.

Mr Yip asked if whistle-blowers would be constrained in reporting poor living or care conditions because of the restriction on publishing information about residents. The answer is no. Clause 38 protects the identities of residents in these homes from being published or broadcasted. Whistle-blowers come to MSF to share information privately rather than broadcast identifiable details of clients in the public sphere.

In addition, under clause 53(2) of the Bill on whistle-blowing, a person who whistle-blows to MSF in good faith cannot be held in any legal proceedings with respect to any restriction on disclosure imposed by any rule of law. Such a provision was included in our Bill precisely to encourage whistle-blowers to step forward if they have such concerns.

Ms Ng Ling Ling raised several questions on the level of approval for the Codes of Practice, calibration of penalties for breaches of Codes of Practice and the lines of accountability for regulatory breaches.

First, the Codes of Practice that are issued to homes are approved by the Director-General. Second, the type of regulatory action taken will be calibrated, depending on factors, such as degree of harm caused and if it is a repeated breach by the home. In some cases, we may suspend approval of specific individuals working in the home. In others, we may shorten a home's licence while giving the home guidance on issues that need to be rectified. Third, in deciding who to take regulatory actions on, please be assured that we have every intention to be fair and reasonable. We will not be overly punitive to our stakeholders.

Allow me to illustrate with a hypothetical example. We intend to introduce a regulatory requirement on the licensee to ensure that staff are adequately trained. If a staff member of the home fails to meet the minimum first aid training requirements and is, thus, unable to promptly attend to residents' need for first aid, we may take action against the licensee.

Mr Yong expressed concern that the enhanced penalties may be excessive and could inadvertently discourage operators or staff from joining the sector. The penalties under this Bill are commensurate with that of comparable offences under other legislation. One notable example is the Healthcare Services Act, which licenses the provision of nursing home service.

Much like our homes, residents in nursing homes are vulnerable and reliant on the home for 24/7 care. The safety and well-being of our homes' residents are no less important.

We recognise that some homes may be anxious about the enhanced penalties. To provide the various stakeholder groups, such as board members, with greater clarity about their duties, we will set out their roles and responsibilities in the Subsidiary Legislation and Codes of Practice. We will not be punitive from the outset. Instead, we will work closely with homes to ensure that they are well-supported to meet the regulatory requirements under this Bill.

Next, I will move on to questions and suggestions pertaining to capability building for our homes.

Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Dennis Tan asked about the regulatory costs arising from this Bill and the support to homes to transit to the new licensing regime. We do not expect the regulatory costs to be significantly higher than today, as the requirements build upon existing legislation and service requirements that homes are familiar with. Nonetheless, MSF and NCSS have set aside a $33 million Transition Support Package for all licensable homes.

Mr Tan will be pleased to know that with this funding, homes will be able to invest in training for staff, updating or installing CCTV systems and change management efforts as they transit to this new licensing regime. Funding will be customised based on the needs of each home.

In addition to the one-off Transition Support Package, Ms Ng and Mr Yong suggested setting up a long-term capability building fund to support homes in building up their operational capabilities and staff competencies.

Investing in sector capabilities is one of our key priorities and we have several schemes and grants available to help social service agencies level up. NCSS administers the Transformation Sustainability Scheme that provides funding to social service agencies to enhance their strategic and organisational capabilities. With this funding, social service agencies are supported in improving staff retention, strengthening volunteer engagement and thereafter, successfully delivering on other capability-building projects.

The Charities Capability Fund, formerly known as VCF that Ms Ng mentioned, continues to be available to social service agencies. It covers a range of capability building matters, including governance and management training for charities' board members and staff.

Ms Ng suggested exploring bulk procurement of common equipment to optimise public funds and resources available to the homes. We thank her for the suggestion. MSF and NCSS will work with social service agencies to optimise resource utilisation and adopt solutions that would best meet their needs.

Mr Yip and Mr Yong asked if staff in our homes are paid fairly and are sufficiently supported to ensure that they do not burn out while caring for residents. Mr Dennis Tan asked a related question about how we intend to support homes' manpower needs.

We are invested in the manpower sustainability of this sector. In my Opening speech, I shared about our reviews of the Skills and Salary Guidelines to ensure that staff are paid competitively and about NCSS working closely with social service agencies to develop stronger organisational capabilities and a supportive workplace environment.

To attract and retain talent in the sector, MSF has also embarked on a job redesign pilot with selected homes. Through this pilot, we hope to enhance the value proposition of a career in the sector, specifically, by improving the working conditions and supporting the career development of care staff.

Mr Yip also asked about the support that MSF provides to ensure that homes have sufficient trained caregivers, including those from foreign countries, and whether foreign worker ratios need to be relaxed. To this end, MSF will continue to work with MOM to ensure that homes have sufficient work pass quota and flexibility to recruit foreign care staff whilst also ensuring opportunities for local staff to progress in their careers.

Mr Yip spoke about the need for adequate capacity. MSF keeps a close eye on the demand and supply of the capacity of our homes. For Adult Disability Homes, which includes Adult Disability Hostels, we are actively addressing waitlist management through several initiatives. We are expanding capacity by adding new facilities and are optimising placement processes to ensure cases with urgent needs are prioritised.

Additionally, we are strengthening community-based support services to provide alternatives to residential care, where appropriate. One example is the Enabled Living Programme pilot, which is an alternative to residential care and seeks to enable persons with disabilities to live and age in the community.

We will continue to ensure sufficient capacity to meet projected demand over the long term, an issue that Mr Yong also spoke about.

As caregivers age and with shrinking family sizes, we expect a slight increase in demand over the next decade. At the same time, MSF and the Ministry of Health are ramping up our support for persons with disabilities and seniors to age in place and for those in homes to be reintegrated more quickly back to the community so that fewer of them need to stay in institutional care.

With the slight increase in demand, manpower needs will also increase. We will continue to invest in technology and process redesign to enhance workforce productivity.

Relatedly, Mr Yip noted that the Bill empowers the Director-General to set capacity limits on homes and expressed concern that this could lead to turning residents in need away. To be clear, the key objective of setting capacity limits is to ensure that quality care can be provided to residents. These limits are determined based on practical considerations, which include, physical space requirements, infrastructure capabilities and staffing ratios. As I had mentioned earlier, MSF will continue to monitor demand and supply trends to ensure sufficient capacity.

Mr Tan asked why the Bill would need to provide for the possibility of housing different client types or profiles together. Let me share an example. Some seniors may have acquired disability while some persons with disabilities have aged and have become seniors themselves, so we may need to equip our homes to cater to both types of needs.

We are in the early stages of reviewing how the sector can evolve over the longer term to improve care quality, leverage technology and build capabilities for better client outcomes. We will work closely with the sector to co-create the future of social residential homes.

Earlier, Ms Ng expressed her appreciation to the individuals who have readily volunteered to be members of the Board of Visitors. I echo Ms Ng's appreciation for Board of Visitors volunteers and would like to share the example of one such volunteer.

Ms Sharifah Masturah Shahab-Yokoyama. She is a veteran special educator with over 30 years of experience working with children and adults with developmental needs. As the Vice Chairperson of one of our Boards of Visitors, Ms Sharifah used her expertise to provide valuable insights to homes on how they can improve the care they provide to residents.

Volunteers like Ms Sharifah play a pivotal role in ensuring that good quality care is provided to residents. Let me share an example from the Singapore Boys' Hostel, a children's home. The Board of Visitors had alerted the management team to feedback from residents on the lack of variety in meals. To address this, the Singapore Boys' Hostel has engaged two caterers to provide greater variety in the food menu.

The close partnership between homes, Boards of Visitors and MSF ensures that residents' voices are heard, a point that Mr Yip earlier alluded to with his suggestion for a separate Residents' Bill of Rights to engender dignity, choice and respect for residents. Under this Bill, MSF will be expanding the Boards of Visitors to cover all these licensable homes. I would like to call upon more interested individuals with the relevant experience and expertise to step forward as our volunteers and join MSF in this journey of caring for the most vulnerable amongst us.

Mr Speaker, having addressed the comments and suggestions raised by Members, I would now like to take this opportunity to place on record, my deepest appreciation for staff in these homes. Many of us may not be familiar with the work that these homes do and the residents that they care for. This is because the majority of our 4,000 residents live in the homes 24/7.

Today, I want to spotlight the dedication of staff in these homes. These 4,000 residents are cared for by about 2,000 staff, many of whom are care staff doing shift work to supervise and assist residents with their activities of daily living. Social workers are another key group that play an important role in journeying with the resident through the challenges and milestones in life. Many of the residents have no one else in their lives to advocate for their needs and to ensure they have access to various resources and opportunities, except for these staff.

To be clear, the work that the home staff do is tough. It is not for the faint-hearted. But it is extremely meaningful.

Under their care, residents are given the help they need to facilitate their recovery, to preserve their health and cognitive functions and be meaningfully engaged. Residents with the potential to live independently or return to their families are also equipped with relevant independent living skills, such as personal care, household chores, budgeting, money management, social skills and help-seeking skills. This ensures that residents are set up for success when they are reintegrated back into society.

I want to share the story of Beatrice, a resident of Thuja Home at Pelangi Village. Beatrice was admitted into the Welfare Home in December 2019 with schizophrenia. Over the years, staff in Thuja Home worked closely with Beatrice in various areas. This includes regular check-ins as well as referrals for psychoeducation and employment. With their care and guidance, Beatrice succeeded in securing employment. Today, she has secured a Housing and Development Board rental flat and will soon be discharged from the home.

To the staff in our homes, thank you for all that you do. Your dedication to uplifting the lives of those in need is the reason why residents, like Beatrice, can rebuild their lives, regain independence and step into the future filled with hope.

Finally, I thank Members for their support for this Bill. I believe this Bill is a much-needed step as we strive to uphold the good quality of care provided to residents across the sector and ensure that every single resident is kept safe and well in our homes. [Applause.]

4.03 pm

Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications for the Senior Minister of State Eric Chua? Looks like there is none.

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 Eric Chua].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.25 pm. Order. Order.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.06 pm until 4.25 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.25 pm.

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