Committee of Supply – Head U (Prime Minister's Office)

Climate Change – Regional Cooperation

Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang): Chairman, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head U of the Estimates be reduced by $100".

As an island nation, Singapore is vulnerable to the impact of climate change and the resulting more extreme weather conditions.

We have started on our transition to adopt more green practices to decarbonise. Although Singapore accounts for only around 0.11% of the world's carbon emissions, we want to do our part as global citizens to mitigate climate change. However, as an international oil and gas refining, storage and trading hub, the transition while reducing our primary emissions to zero will not be easy.

We will need to transform our economy and decouple growth from fossil fuel consumption. In order to achieve net zero, Singapore needs to reduce the net output of each person by 8.31 tonnes of carbon emissions by 2050. This reduction needs to come from the power, industrial and transport sectors, which account for more than 97% of our total primary emissions.

To decarbonise our power grid, we have to increase solar energy provision and purchase renewable electricity from other countries such as through imports of renewable energy from the Lao PDR-Thailand-Malaysia-Singapore Power Integration Project. Up to 100 megawatts of renewable hydropower from Lao PDR will be delivered to Singapore via interconnections with Thailand and Malaysia.

Being a small country without natural resources, regional cooperation projects like this with larger neighbouring countries which are endowed with big land masses suitable for harvesting solar, wind and hydroelectric are necessary. Would the Ministry share what other regional cooperation projects are in the pipeline to boost our joint efforts to decarbonise as well as to manage and protect our regional environment and water resources?

What are Singapore's capabilities and strengths which we can bring to the table in these collaborations to help in the fight against climate change? How will the initiatives from the 28th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP28) affect Singapore? And how will the Government encourage stronger international cooperation to address climate change?

Singapore is well positioned to be the green finance hub for ASEAN and Asia. We can also play an important role in transition finance to help companies become greener via long-term initiatives. What can the Government do to encourage investment in climate action, especially in Southeast Asia?

Question proposed.

Climate Change – Extreme Weather

Ms Poh Li San: In January this year, the Centre for Climate Research Singapore released the Third National Climate Change Study, which estimated more extreme projections for Singapore's weather conditions, including temperature, humidity, rainfall, wind speeds, and sea level rise. Which are likely to be the most major changes that Singapore needs to prepare for? What are the Government's plans in response to these projections? Will some segments of our population be more vulnerable in the event of these weather changes and how can the Government support Singaporeans, especially those with less resources, in the green transition?

How will the Government increase public awareness of the implications of more extreme weather conditions? How can businesses, households and individuals play their part in the fight against climate change?

The Northern Sea Route

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Chairman, with climate change, countries around the globe have been bracing themselves for changes in the nature of global supply chains and economic policy. One of the changes we have been following is the opening of the Northern Sea Route and how this may affect the economy of Singapore. The question at hand is not merely a transport or maritime issue which Minister Vivian Balakrishnan and Minister Chee Hong Tat addressed in 2020 and 2021 respectively, but is respectfully at heart an economic one.

Today, Singapore is the second busiest port in the world and with the maritime industry contributing to 7% of local GDP, employing more than 170,000 people, the investment of $20 billion into the Tuas Mega Port can be seen as a vote of confidence in the development of Singapore's port capabilities as an economic strategy.

However, with climate change, should the Arctic sea ice continue with its current decline at a rate of 13% per year, an uninterrupted sea highway between Asia and Europe and the US that is navigable by large container ships will be created, allowing for a shorter route between Europe and the Pacific.

What this means is that cargo shipments may bypass the Suez Canal and the Malacca Strait, and hence Singapore. This raises concern of whether Singapore will remain the top transhipment port in the world and a major port of call, which may in turn have trickle-down effects to the economy that should not be underestimated.

Cargo passage along the Northern Sea Route has increased from 41,000 tonnes of cargo in 2010 to 285,000 tonnes in 2019 and is expected to only increase in the future, given that the warming in the Arctic has been four times faster than the rest of the world.

I would thus like to ask: one, whether the Government has an update on the climate developments of the Northern Sea Route since 2021; two, whether the Government has studied the possible economic impact of the Northern Sea Route to jobs and businesses in Singapore; three, has the Government studied the projected impact to the capacity of Tuas Mega Port in 2050 and beyond, should the Northern Sea Route become the predominant shipping route, and if so, whether it has taken any measures into account in the planning of the Tuas Terminals?

How will our economic policy adapt to the changes brought about by the development of the route in the coming years? And what are the Government's plans to ensure that the country remains economically competitive if the route should affect our status as a premier global hub, port and international maritime centre?

Lead Southeast Asian Climate Change Efforts

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): I am glad the voices of activists were heard, and Singapore will raise our climate targets and achieve net zero emissions by 2050. It is an ambitious target but one that is very much needed. Can the Government share whether we are on track to reach this target?

I am also glad that Singapore is leading efforts to combat climate change. At the World Climate Action Summit, Singapore led the charge on regional partnerships by announcing plans to raise S$6.6 billion to finance efforts to green the region.

Part of these efforts include the Sustainability Action Package (SAP) for sharing expertise and best practices on sustainability and climate issues. Under the SAP, Singapore will work with partners from the public and private sectors, and non-profit and international organisations to build capacity. Will the Government ensure that we cast a broad net and enable more diverse actors to contribute, including from smaller organisations and civil society groups who have valuable expertise to contribute?

In this spirit, will the Government also look into increasing access research funding for a greater variety of researchers to join the research efforts and this global fight?

Climate Targets

Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Mr Chairman, in 2022, the Government raised our climate targets to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 as part of our Long-Term Low-Emissions Development Strategy.

In addition, the Government has also committed to reducing emissions to around 60 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) in 2030 after peaking emissions earlier as part of the revised 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC).

These new targets have been duly lodged UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in 2022.

This is an ambitious undertaking given our constraints as an alternative energy-deprived city state. I applaud the Government for pursuing these stretched targets and doing our part fight global climate change. Can I ask for an update on the preparations and what steps is Singapore taking to achieve these targets?

Decarbonisation and Green Finance

Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang): Mr Chairman, as a small island state, Singapore is highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. The fight against climate change demands unwavering commitment and bold actions. As we navigate the path towards decarbonisation, I want to raise several key questions.

First, how is Singapore keeping pace with emerging decarbonisation pathways? We need to be actively exploring and investing in low- and zero-carbon technologies like renewable energy, hydrogen and carbon capture. How can we ensure our efforts remain aligned with the latest advancements and evolving global strategies? How will the $5 billion Future Energy Fund be used to support the development of essential infrastructure especially those with long gestation periods like nuclear energy?

Second, how can we further engage the private sector and philanthropic organisations in supporting decarbonisation efforts? What specific measures are being considered to mobilise private capital and expertise towards ambitious climate goals?

Third, how will Singapore catalyse green and transition finance, especially within Southeast Asia? As a regional financial hub, we can play a leading role in channelling investments towards sustainable infrastructure, green projects and climate adaptation initiatives. Can the Government give an update on the Green Finance Action Plan? This is a comprehensive strategy to develop green finance solutions and capabilities, promote green finance standards and disclosures, foster green finance innovation and collaboration and build green finance talent and awareness.

Finally, can we leverage our unique position as a global hub to accelerate climate actions, both at home and abroad? While mandating sustainable aviation fuel for departing flights is a commendable way, what other strategic initiatives are planned across different sectors to leverage on our hub position? How will such initiatives affect Singapore's economic competitiveness as a travel hub?

Investing in decarbonisation is not just an environmental responsibility. It is an economic opportunity for us as well. By embracing innovation, collaboration and regional leadership, Singapore can chart a course towards a greener, more resilient future for all.

The Chairman: Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean.

The Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Ms Poh Li San and other Members have raised important issues which I will address from a whole-of-Government perspective. Some of the details will be dealt with by the individual Ministries during their Committee of Supply (COS) debates.

I speak as Chairman of the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change (IMCCC).

3.00 pm

Amid heightened geopolitical and economic turbulence, the world is currently on a pathway to 2.1 to 2.8°C of global warming by 2100. The Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) has been working to improve our understanding of the consequences of such a pathway. Today, we have a clearer projection. But it is a projection, because we are talking about what is going to happen for the rest of the century.

The Third National Climate Change Study, released last month, forecasts the extreme climate conditions that we could experience – higher temperatures, heavier spells of rainfall, longer and more frequent dry spells.

In the worst-case scenario, where global emissions continue rising rapidly, Singapore could face daily maximum temperatures exceeding 35°C almost year-round. This would be a marked increase from the historical average of 21 such days each year.

Ms Poh Li San asked how we are responding to these latest projections. We take a long-term and proactive approach, and we are developing our adaptation plans. These are regularly refreshed to keep up with the latest science, to help us be ready for the climate risks we will face – whether they are physical risks such as flooding, or health risks.

The physical effects of climate change also have wider implications for our economy, as Mr Dennis Tan has pointed out about the Northern Sea Route. If rising temperatures in the Arctic make this short-cut passable year-round, it could alter the flow of shipping between Asia and Europe. Our port will therefore have to be more efficient and better-connected to compete. This is why Singapore has been closely monitoring developments in the Arctic. Although Singapore is on the equator, we have been an Arctic Council Observer State since 2013 – for the last 11 years – and we contribute and participate actively in its discussions. Currently, the commercial viability of the Arctic routes remains low. It is a very difficult and treacherous route. In 2022, only 43 transit voyages were made through the Northern Sea Route, fewer than the 85 transit voyages in 2021.

Still, we cannot ignore how profoundly climate change can disrupt our lives and livelihoods. For Singapore, this means not just acting now to achieve our own climate goals, but also catalysing regional and global action, so that other countries do the same. Only then can we collectively achieve our global climate action goals. As Ms Poh Li San pointed out, we emit about 0.1% of the carbon dioxide each year, but we are affected by the other 99.9%.

Domestically, we have set ambitious targets. In 2022, we announced our enhanced climate targets, committing to reduce emissions by 2030 to 60 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, after peaking emissions earlier; and to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. We have essentially decided to target for the future, look at what the future will bring for us, shape our economy and our society and plan on that basis rather than doing incremental changes as we go along.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked how we are turning our ambitions into action. Our carbon tax, which was raised to $25 per tonne this year, is a key enabler. It shapes behaviour across our economy, and we continue to use the revenues to help businesses and households become greener. I am truly heartened that both sides of this House have expressed support for a broad-based carbon tax. Some have advocated, for example, from the Workers' Party (WP), much higher tax rates and sooner than what the Government is actually intending to implement up to 2030. What we are intending to implement is carefully calibrated to take into account the adjustment as needed by households and businesses and also the maturing of technologies that will make it more efficient for us to decarbonise.

We are also transforming our energy mix to run on greener power. We have doubled our solar power deployment since 2021 to over 1,000 Megawatt-peak (MWp), despite our limited land area. We aim to reach 2,000 MWp by 2030, or 2 Gigawatt-peak (GWp). As a comparison, our power supply consumption right now is about 8 GWp. Of course, 2 GWp is not the same – you cannot put them side by side. We are importing low-carbon electricity, allowing us to tap renewable energy beyond our shores.

Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked how Singapore can capitalise on emerging technologies to support our energy transition. This year, the Government will set up a Future Energy Fund (FEF) with an initial injection of $5 billion. The FEF will allow us to plan ahead to catalyse the infrastructure investments we need to deploy low-carbon technologies, when they are viable. There is a range of things it could be. It could be hydrogen, could be ammonia, could be a number of things and we need to start doing that within the next few years.

We are also looking at new solutions beyond the power sector. We have been monitoring carbon capture and storage (CCS). The technologies underpinning CCS are not new and there is growing recognition from countries and organisations, such as the International Energy Agency (IEA), that CCS can play an important role in achieving significant reductions of industrial emissions.

Countries in the region, such as Australia, Brunei, Indonesia and Malaysia, have strong geological potential for carbon dioxide storage, and some of our regional partners have announced plans to develop as regional CCS hubs.

We are ready to work with like-minded partners on pathfinder projects to catalyse the development of such regional hubs. The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) will provide more details on this.

Mr Chairman, the climate transition will take a whole-of-nation effort. Ms Poh Li San asked how the Government is supporting businesses and households in this transition.

Our small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are benefiting from schemes that help them decarbonise and seize green economy prospects. One example is bbp – an energy efficiency solutions provider. Leveraging Enterprise Singapore’s Enterprise Development Grant and other scale-up programmes, bbp has helped businesses achieve more than $90 million of energy savings and avoid 240,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, across nine Asian markets. Of course, developing a nice business for themselves.

We will continue to enhance our schemes to encourage energy efficiency among businesses and households. These include expanding the Energy Efficiency Grant to more sectors, enhancing the climate-friendly households programme that offsets the upfront costs of switching to more energy- and water-efficient appliances. MTI and MSE will update this House on their efforts in these areas in greater detail.

Mr Louis Ng asked about support for our research community. The Government’s Research, Innovation and Enterprise 2025 Plan (RIE2025) allocates significant funding to R&D across every pillar of the Singapore Green Plan. This ranges from low carbon energy research all the way to research in coastal protection and flood management, and covers a wide range of things. We recently enhanced funding for the RIE2025 Plan. This will facilitate the research community’s contribution to climate action.

Ms Poh Li San asked how Singapore can play an active role in fostering international collaboration and catalysing global climate action. Mr Chairman, domestic action alone is necessary but not sufficient for us to succeed in global climate action. All countries and regions must do their part. This is why, under the Sustainability Action Package, Singapore supports capacity building for developing countries and brings together a diverse range of public and private sector partners to share best practices on sustainability and climate issues.

Let me share a few examples of the efforts we contributed to at COP28 in Dubai.

Minister Grace Fu helped broker a landmark consensus among the Parties to transition our energy systems away from fossil fuels. This is a strong signal of global resolve to pursue a net-zero future.

Beyond the negotiating rooms, the Singapore Pavilion at COP28 was a hive of activity. It brought key organisations and persons from the private and people sectors together to forge new partnerships. For example, Singaporean ocean carrier Pacific International Lines and Dubai-based port and terminal operator DP World signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to jointly develop green solutions to decarbonise global supply chains.

Our Pavilion was also home to Singapore’s inaugural youth delegation to COP28. Our young people deserve our support to apply their energy and ideas to the challenge of climate change and make a real difference. MSE will share more about how the Government is enabling youth action.

The world needs to continue the momentum from COP28 to accelerate climate action. Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked how Singapore can leverage our strengths as a hub to do that. Let me highlight three ways.

First, green and transition finance. Asia will require an estimated US$1.7 trillion dollars in climate and infrastructure investment annually through to 2030. This substantial amount will need to be met by a combination of concessional and commercial capital.

As a financial hub, Singapore is well-placed to catalyse green and transition finance for the region. As an example, at COP28, I announced the launch of a new blended finance initiative – the Financing Asia’s Transition Partnerships (FAST-P) that will mobilise up to US$5 billion from public and private sector partners to de-risk and finance transition and marginally bankable green projects in Asia.

Singapore is also helping to build high-integrity carbon markets and pursuing collaboration on carbon credits under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement with various countries. At COP28, we signed our first Implementation Agreement, and this was with Papua New Guinea. MTI will share more about our efforts on carbon markets.

The second area is energy. Singapore is helping to accelerate Southeast Asia’s energy transition by promoting partnerships that benefit our nation and the region.

To support regional energy transition, we will establish in Singapore the first-ever International Energy Agency Regional Cooperation Centre outside of its Paris headquarters. The Centre gives Southeast Asia greater access to the IEA’s expertise and facilitates capacity building.

The third area is transport. As an aviation and maritime hub, Singapore can play a major role in developing the infrastructure and standards for green aviation and shipping.

The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) recently launched the Singapore Sustainable Air Hub Blueprint, which takes a balanced approach on the need for sustainability and competitiveness for our aviation sector. This will help catalyse the development of sustainable aviation globally and facilitate the industry’s progress towards decarbonisation.

We are also making progress on green shipping. In December 2023, we signed a memorandum of cooperation with Japan to establish the Singapore-Japan Green and Digital Shipping corridor. This complements similar partnerships with ports in the Netherlands, China and the United States (US), allowing us to support the decarbonisation, digitalisation and growth of the maritime industry.

Mr Chairman, I have explained why it is in Singapore's interest to commit to climate action, outlined concrete steps we are taking as a nation to meet our ambitious climate targets, and highlighted how Singapore is stepping up to encourage regional and global action.

We must stay the course in our green transition because we want to leave behind a liveable, resilient and thriving country and world for future generations of Singaporeans.

The Chairman: Mr Patrick Tay. You may take your two cuts together.

The Future Singapore Population

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Singapore faces pressing demographic challenges such as an ageing population and a low birth rate. Life expectancy has also gone up and many choose to remain single. Even those married may not have children either by choice or otherwise. Social issues such as ageism and increased caregiving responsibilities are further exacerbated by an uncertain global environment and economic outlook which present challenging conditions for Singapore’s economic growth.

Within this operating context, what are the key population outcomes that the Government wants to achieve for our future Singapore and what are the Government’s strategies to achieve these outcomes?

3.15 pm

Slowing Workforce Growth

With fewer births and an ageing population, our local workforce is shrinking. Our NTUC strategy team recently embarked on a research study on our ageing population as well as slowing workforce growth. The key insights are that in the next five years, Singapore's labour market is predicted to tighten with unemployment and retrenchments expected to stabilise in the longer term. We also expect to see a decline in job vacancies in manufacturing, construction and segments of the services sector.

The study found that there are barriers and drivers that enable mature workers and women with caregiving duties to find and stay in employment. We opine that other than automation, mature workers and women with caregiving responsibilities are untapped groups to supplement a shrinking local workforce. We further submit that professional networks, flexible work arrangements (FWAs) and training opportunities and skills relevance foster their continued employment and facilitate their entry into the workforce.

In the study, we also found that there is a disconnect between perception and the actual action of hiring mature workers. Implementing training plans for mature workers was perceived by employers to be the most effective in extending the career runway of mature workers but is unfortunately not among the top practices adopted. My question is, therefore, how will we continue maintaining a vibrant economy that creates good job opportunities for Singaporeans and future generations amidst this slowing workforce growth.

Population Strategies

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Chairman, Singapore faces pressing demographic challenges. Can the Government elaborate on the key population outcomes envisioned for our future? What are the Government's plans to achieve these outcomes within the current economic and demographic challenges?

Falling fertility is a challenge that developed economies are struggling with. Singapore is no exception. A shrinking workforce due to falling birth rates raises concerns about sustaining our economy. How will we continue maintaining a vibrant economy that creates good job opportunities for Singaporeans and future generations?

Our total fertility rate (TFR) has fallen to a historic 1.04. This raises concerns about our long-term demographic sustainability. This trend aligns with other developed nations like South Korea, where despite significant investments in childcare subsidies, birth rates remain low. What additional measures beyond existing schemes can alleviate concerns about starting and raising families?

While marriage and parenthood remain aspirational for many Singaporeans, factors like career goals and housing affordability can lead to postponed parenthood. This delay, combined with the realities of biological limitations, can make achieving such aspirations more challenging. I urge the Government to further support couples who want children and cultivate a national culture of proactive family planning.

In this context, I have three questions. What is the uptake of elective egg freezing since 2023? While awaiting the proposed extension of IVF co-funding to private clinics, what immediate options are available for couples actively seeking to start families? Can private clinics adequately address the affordability and quality concerns associated with fertility treatments?

Overall Population Strategies – Fertility

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): In many developed nations, including Singapore, falling fertility has become a challenge. Fewer and later marriages, later and fewer births, a rapidly ageing population – these trends combined will have a significant impact on all aspects of our lives, our social fabric, workforce, economy, national defence and more.

Will we be able to sustain our society and our standard of living? Who will look after increasing numbers of elderly? Who will pay taxes? Will we have enough blood donors? How can we continue to maintain a vibrant economy and create good jobs for Singaporeans? We have to keep our country running. Even with advanced technology and artificial intelligence, manpower, especially younger people, are needed. What measures will the Government implement to reverse our falling fertility rate? Are we prepared to consider more extensive and innovative measures to support and encourage dating, marriages and procreation?

Accepting younger migrants and having more temporary foreign workers and employees in our workforce offer only a partial solution, as these measures come with their own challenges. There are also issues of social integration, cohesion and stability. Nonetheless, will the Government be reviewing immigration policies to counter our falling fertility rate?

Population Projections beyond 2030

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Chairman, the Government has clarified that it does not aim for Singapore's population to increase to 10 million, and it is anticipating a population of significantly below 6.9 million by 2030. However, with 2030 only six years away and fast approaching, a key question arises – what are the Government's longer-term forecasts?

Population projections are a critical tool for public policy planning. Given current birth rates and the intake of new citizens and Permanent Residents (PRs), what are the Government's projections for Singapore's population in 2040 and 2050? These figures are pivotal not just for immediate policy adjustments, but for securing a sustainable future for all.

The Government claims that it does not seek to achieve any particular population size. I find this rather strange. If there is no population target, how does it decide how much to regulate the immigration tap or how much to invest in pro-natalist policies to achieve its desired economic, social and security outcomes over the long term?

The Chairman: Mr Faisal Manap, you can take your two cuts together.

Singapore Population

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Sir, according to figures released by the Government in 2023, our total population stands at around 5.9 million, of which 4.9 million are residents and 1.8 million are non-residents. Racial demographics have remained largely stable. The most worrying statistic released was the all-time low fertility rate of 1.04. Set against the backdrop of an ageing population, these statistics become more worrying.

Sir, I would like to ask if the Government has a projection for the number of new residents and non-residents for the next five years. Following from that, I would like to ask for a progress update on the efforts to ensure that our infrastructure development is able to support an increasing population, in view of the delay and disruption in the construction sector resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Sir, I also note from the figures released by the Government in 2023 that there are over 200,000 Singaporeans presently based overseas. This is testament to the resilience and adaptability of our Singaporeans. But I also wonder if there are concerns of potential brain drain resulting from greater emigration. Does the Government have a strategy of managing emigration to ensure Singapore itself does not lose out on our homegrown talent?

My final point is on the Government's effort in attracting Malay talent. In the past years, me and a few other Malay Members of Parliament, including former President Mdm Halimah Yacob, had asked through Parliamentary Questions and COS cuts on the measures and efforts taken by the Government in attracting Malay talent.

Sir, back in December 2012, the Prime Minister commented during a session of Our Singapore Conversation that the Government had done its best and worked hard to attract Malay talent from Malaysia and Indonesia, but the numbers were small. Hence, I would like to ask for updates on the Government's efforts in attracting Malay talents till date.

Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents

Sir, it is indicated on ICA's website with regard to the application for Singapore PR or citizenship that, I quote, "ICA takes into account factors, such as the individual's family ties to Singaporeans, economic contributions, qualifications, age, family profile and length of residency, to assess the applicant's ability to contribute to Singapore and integrate into our society, as well as his or her commitment to sinking roots." In short, ICA will assess each application for Singapore PR and citizenship based on its merits.

As publicly known, there has been a Government stance in maintaining the racial balance in Singapore population to preserve social stability.

Sir, based on the two points I mentioned above, I would like to seek clarification from the Government whether there are instances where applications for Singapore PR or citizenship have to be rejected resulting from a fulfilled immigration quota so as to maintain the racial balance in Singapore's population, even though these applications have their merits?

Sir, if there are, indeed, such situations, I would like to ask how does the Government balance its commitment to maintain the racial balance of our population in the context of our immigration policy? For example, does it make it more challenging for foreign spouses and/or family members of Singaporeans to be granted permanent residency, which is necessary before citizenship is considered? I look forward to the Prime Minister's Office's (PMO's) clarification.

Integration

Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): Sir, immigrants add to our workforce and add diversity and vitality to our population. With the immigrant community already forming a significant share of the population, integration amongst all those who call Singapore home is crucial to keep our society cohesive. For this to happen, we need more social mixing and business networking, and these efforts should start from young.

However, the vast majority of immigrant children attend international schools. We know that sports bring people together. So, perhaps including international schools in our national school games or forming joint sports teams between our schools and international schools is one way to bring Singaporean and immigrant students together, along with their parents.

What is the Government doing to support integration in schools, community and workplaces, and how can stakeholders across society do their part?

The Chairman: Mr Gan Thiam Poh, please take your two cuts together.

Population

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Chairman. With an increasing number of elderly who may be frail who need help to look after them, what is the projected numbers of migrant domestic workers (MDWs) required to support and meet the needs of our ageing population? How would the Government ensure that we can recruit and retain enough trained MDWs?

Falling Total Fertility Rate (TFR)

Our falling TFR will have a negative impact on the future of our society and economy. What will the Government do to encourage marriages and support young couples to have more babies? Many young people are working hard at their careers and further studies. How will the Government assist and support them to network and meet potential marriage partners?

The Chairman: Ms Ng Ling Ling, take your two cuts together.

Supporting Marriage and Parenthood

Ms Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Chairman. On supporting marriage and parenthood, Mr Chairman, several hon Members of this House have already mentioned that in 2022, our TFR hit another low of 1.04 and there was also a 4% reduction in citizen births from the previous year.

Although we have seen an encouraging increase in citizen marriages over the past two years, the annual average number of marriages and births over the last five years remains lower than that of the preceding five years. With these demographic challenges that we are facing as a nation, despite increasing Government financial incentives for young couples to start a family and have more children, I would like to ask: one, beyond the financial support, what other proactive and innovative approaches is the Government exploring to address the factors contributing to the decline in TFR?

I suggested setting up a social ecosystem of mentoring on family planning and financial management to alleviate the financial anxieties of setting up families in my Budget speech. I would like to ask if this is something that the Government can facilitate in more local communities.

Second question, considering the rising median age of first marriages and first-time citizen mothers, what additional measures can be taken to increase awareness of potential fertility challenges and encourage earlier family formation?

Coaching Young People in Life Choices

Mr Chairman, in a recent pre-conference poll done by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) for the Singapore Perspective Conference 2024, seven in 10 of young Singaporeans aged between 21 and 34 believe that it is not necessary to get married, but most still want to do so. Seventy-two percent similarly think that it is not necessary to have children in a marriage, but most of them still would like to have children.

Our young people are increasingly focusing on furthering their education and career advancement over marriage and parenthood. This aspiration and reality gap can contribute to continued implications on our demographic challenges.

I would like to ask, given the importance of financial planning and fertility health in achieving family life goals, could the Government consider embedding financial education related to family planning and fertility health in our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), just like how career coaching is proliferated?

3.30 pm

Creating Family-friendly Work Culture

Ms Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Mr Chairman, we need Flexible Work to be an imperative, as a country that needs to increase our total fertility rate – at the same time that people are coping with the rising demands of eldercare. One way to leapfrog this is to progress towards work-life integration, instead of getting stuck and caught with "work-life balance". This goes beyond mere semantics to a fundamental shift in mindset and concept.

"Balance" reinforces the idea that "work" and "life" oppose each other and that there is a need to cut back in order to achieve balance. With the push for higher productivity amidst manpower shortages, "cutting back" of any sort makes companies nervous.

But with "Integration", the two are melded – potentially mutually enhancing each other. Outdated notions like "going to work" or "clocking in and out" makes both employers and employees calculative when work encroaches into personal time or when personal matters encroach into work time. Such calculativeness is stressful and disempowering for both.

Life does not happen like clockwork, nor does business. Work hours and routine helped organise people and shifts – which was relevant during the industrial era with factory-based work. But now technology and communication tools allow many people to work anytime, anywhere. We do business in the information and digital age, but we are still stuck in the industrial-era mindset when organising our workforce.

Integrating work and life allows for tasks in each domain to get done, whenever it can be done. It enhances a sense of autonomy when employees can optimise their energies and time to organise their tasks in the most convenient and efficient manners that work for them. These will help boost productivity and mental well-being. Research has already shown that employees are willing to work for less pay with FWA. And that is how much people value such trust and autonomy.

What are National Population and Talent Division's (NPTD)’s and Prime Minister's Office's (PMO)'s plans to accelerate work-life integration for a triple-win for employees, employers and Singapore?

Flexible Work Arrangements (FWAs)

Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Building a Singapore Made For Families requires a whole-of-society effort. Many parents desire greater support and FWAs to better enable them to juggle work and family commitments. In a recent survey by the National Trades Union Congress' (NTUC's) Women and Family Unit and the PAP Women's Wing, close to 90% of nearly 3,000 caregivers surveyed chose FWAs as their most preferred form of support. For effective FWAs to happen, we need the support of employers.

The NTUC has been advocating for FWAs since 1995, when we introduced FWAs in our collective agreement negotiations. We are also heartened to note that there are over 12,000 companies – mostly SMEs – which are signatories to the 2017 Tripartite Standards for FWAs. During COVID-19, introductions of FWAs in companies spiked with Singaporean firms offering FWAs rising up to 70% from 53% pre-COVID-19.

However, reports show that post-COVID-19, companies have started to cut down on their FWAs offerings – citing productivity and trust issues. For employers, FWAs must lead to productivity gains and a culture of trust must be created in the workplace. Beyond providing for wider and extended family and elder-caregiving leave, I believe employers see FWAs as a tenable, sustainable way to retain and attract talent. But our less resourced companies like our SMEs, may find it challenging to implement this on the ground in the same speed and scale as larger enterprises.

It is therefore important to ask: how will the Government continue to support employers in building a more family-friendly environment for Singaporeans?

The Government's continued support for employers in implementing FWAs is critical in creating a family-friendly environment that meets the needs of our working caregivers. Together, we can build a Singapore that not only supports aspirations of our workforce but also nurtures strong and resilient families.

Childcare Leave for Parents of Persons with Disabilites (PwDs)

Miss Rachel Ong (West Coast): Chairman, under current regulations, childcare leave ends when a child turns 12 – assuming they are independent by then. However, this overlooks parents of children with severe disabilities or rare disorders who are undergoing care regardless of age.

The level of care for these children does not diminish and may even intensify as their condition progresses. As a result, many caregivers have appealed to their employers to use their personal medical leave instead; believing they would not need it for themselves due to their dedication to their child's well-being.

I brought up this issue during last year's Budget Debate, if the Government would consider extending childcare leave for parents of children with severe disabilities past the age of 12? What alternatives are available for these parents in terms of childcare leave?

The Chairman: Mr Louis Ng. Please take your four cuts together.

Mandate Extra Paternity Leave

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, last year, we celebrated the announcement of the extra two weeks of paternity leave. A year later, unfortunately, we are still waiting for these two weeks of paternity leave to be mandated. The sad reality is that – as reported in the media – some companies are waiting for the paternity leave to be mandated before they give it.

Fathers are losing precious time with their babies – precious family time.

We all wish this is not the case. We all hope that mindsets would have shifted, and paternity leave need not be made mandatory before companies give it. The Government must step in and ensure that we are indeed a Singapore made for families. Our policies and our firm commitment can help shape mindsets and change them more quickly.

Can the Government provide a firm timeline on when the extra two weeks of paternity leave will be mandated?

Increase and Equalise Parental Leave

Next, Prime Minister Lee urged couples to add a little dragon in this Year of the Dragon. Our record-low fertility rate is an existential problem. We have been generous in giving parents bonuses, vouchers and tax rebates. But I hope we can give parents something even more valuable – time.

Every year, I know I sound like a broken record asking for more parental leave, more childcare leave, more parent care leave, fertility leave and annual leave. But valuable time is important to many people. I sincerely hope the Government will consider providing parents with more parental leave – both maternity and paternity leave; and commit to a firm timeline to equalise both maternity and paternity leave.

Can the Government also provide more incentives to companies to support them in giving their employees parental leave?

We support companies when it comes to giving their employees time to serve their reservist. We should provide the same level of support when it comes to giving their employees time to welcome their babies into this world. This will help us truly become a Singapore made for families.

More Lactation Rooms in Buildings

Next, in a 2022 survey by the Breastfeeding Mothers Support Group Singapore, more than half of mothers stopped breastfeeding before their child turned one year old. The main reason cited was the challenges of expressing milk at work.

Under the Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment, lactation rooms are only required for buildings with a floor area of above 10,000 square meters – this is less than 10% of more than 4,000 offices and business parks. For the rest of the offices, it is left to employers to provide lactation rooms. This can be challenging, especially for SMEs. We can do more to help.

Currently, there is an Accessibility Fund for building owners to upgrade their buildings or install a lactation pod. Can the Government do more to publicise the Accessibility Fund and urge people to apply for it? Can the Government also look into providing additional support for building owners to retrofit their buildings, with dedicated lactation rooms or install lactation pods?

Support for More Lactation Rooms

Finally, under the Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment, accessible toilets for adults with disabilities or seniors must be present at a huge number of locations.

However, under the same Code, there must only be one – at least one lactation room – only at limited areas. We recognise that our buildings should be inclusive in making sure that accessible toilets are widely available, even if some buildings may not have elderly or disabled users.

Why the disparity when it comes to lactation rooms?

About half of our population are female and many of them will go on to become mothers who should have the option of breastfeeding their children, if they wish to. We try to encourage Singaporeans to set up families through bonuses and vouchers. Designing our public facilities for families sends a visible and clear signal that this is a Singapore made for families.

It has been more than five years since the Code was last updated.

Will the Government make our Code more inclusive in the next iteration of the Code by lowering the gross floor area (GFA) threshold for the requirement of lactation rooms and also mandating more lactation rooms in buildings – the same way we do for accessible toilets?

Support for Families with Young Children

Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Chairman, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The practice of "marrying first and then advancing your career" is not common in today's society.

For many young couples, the pressure of raising children is very significant. Therefore, they often hope to strengthen their respective career foundation, has stable financial capabilities before they consider whether or not to welcome a new life. However, by the time they reach that point, it is often too late.

When they wish to add more family members, they have already missed the last bus.

How should the Government alleviate the pressure on young couples to have more children and assist parents reduce and cope with their expenses and burdens of raising children?

How should the Government provide reassurances to Singaporeans, especially those in the lower, middle-income families to ensure that our children have a good starting point, regardless of the family's financial situation, especially in terms of their healthcare and early childhood education.

(In English): As the saying goes “it takes a village to raise a child”. Hence, every bit of support – no matter how little – and be it through caregiving or financial assistance, is always a welcome relief to alleviate the stress encountered during parenthood journeys.

Not all couples are fortunate in the sense of having able-bodied parents, or being able to afford the cost of hiring a reliable helper to assist in caring for their young children. Based on the concerns that my Woodgrove residents have shared with me, these couples generally face greater concerns about caregiving arrangements – especially in the early stages of their child's life and even more so when they – the parents or their child – fall sick.

The ability to be present as the main caregiver of their children is one of the main wants of every parent and this, of course, includes daddies. I therefore applaud the Government's willingness to adapt to changing times by increasing paternity leave allowances, yet even that may not be quite enough as companies have been observed to be "rebalancing", by calibrating the number of remote working days allowed.

Therefore, I ask: how is the Government looking into other measures such as increasing the number of childcare leave for both mummies and daddies in response, to ensure that both parents are able to witness every important milestone of their children?

Besides the struggles of sourcing suitable caregivers for their children, families often also fret over the financial constraints while striving to provide the best for their children.

What is the Government doing to provide stronger support for parents in these areas – particularly when cost of living issues continue to have an adverse impact on this group? With regard to the Baby Bonus Scheme, will the quantum of the cash gift be periodically reviewed to be aligned with inflation? And can the Ministry explore widening the list of approved uses for the Child Development Account (CDA) to further assist parents with child-related expenses?

The Chairman: Minister Indranee Rajah.

The Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Chairman, I thank Members for their cuts.

Our vision for Singapore’s population is: a thriving people, a dynamic economy, an inclusive society and a resilient nation – a Singapore where all Singaporeans can achieve their personal and family aspirations; have good jobs, good incomes and good careers; and live fulfilling lives.

We must also lay the foundations for future generations to do the same.

However, we are confronted with the twin demographic challenges of a persistently low fertility rate and an ageing population. These challenges are not unique to Singapore. Many other advanced societies also face rapidly declining fertility.

South Korea continues to grapple with a fertility rate below 1.0 – far below the replacement level of 2.1. Closer to home, Malaysia and Thailand saw their fertility rates fall in 2022. European countries, such as Italy and Spain, continue to see record lows in births year on year.

Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the key population outcomes we want and our strategies for achieving them. Fundamentally, we need more Singaporeans. A strong Singaporean citizenry is the bedrock and wellspring of a thriving nation. We must hence continue to support Singaporeans in starting and raising families.

Second, we must manage the practical impact of slowing local workforce growth and an ageing population on our society and economy. This is where our immigration, foreign workforce and integration strategies come in.

Third, we must understand that this task cannot be undertaken by the Government alone. We can only succeed through our collective efforts.

Mr Gerald Giam asked about our population projections and how we plan our population policies.

As indicated at last year's Committee of Supply, our total population is likely to be below 6.9 million by 2030. This planning parameter remains relevant for the 2030s. Beyond that, our population size will depend on various demographic trends, such as birth rates, life expectancies, deaths and migration; as well as future social and economic needs. In planning for the longer-term, we develop various scenarios to ensure that we are adequately prepared for a range of possible outcomes, rather than focus on a single number.

In all scenarios, however, supporting marriage and parenthood remains a fundamental priority. We have been and will continue to invest heavily in families as this is an existential issue for us.

Also, our efforts to raise fertility will take time to show results. A carefully managed immigration policy is hence an important supporting measure to moderate the impact of low birth rates and an ageing population on our society and economy.

3.45 pm

So, let me now elaborate on our population strategies, the trade-offs we face and the whole-of-society effort needed.

At the core of our population vision are strong and stable families. Last year, there were 26,500 resident marriages. We were also delighted to welcome 30,500 resident births. Overall, however, there were fewer resident marriages and births annually on average over the last five years, as compared to the preceding five-year period. Our resident total fertility rate, or TFR, has continued to decline. Preliminary estimates indicate a resident TFR of 0.97 in 2023, the first time it has dropped below 1.0.

There are various reasons for Singapore's low fertility. Some are temporal, for instance, couples that had their marriage plans disrupted by COVID-19, which may in turn, have delayed their parenthood plans. Others cite concerns about the financial costs of child-raising, pressures to be an excellent parent, or difficulties managing work and family commitments.

More broadly though, our low fertility reflects a global phenomenon where individual priorities and societal norms have shifted. This can be seen from a slew of articles on the TFRs of other countries.

Mr Chairman, Sir, with your permission, may I please distribute an Annex which has some of these articles, to Members of the House?

The Chairman: Please proceed. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]

Ms Indranee Rajah: Thank you. Members may also access these materials through the MP@SGPARL app. What I am circulating is the list, but the articles are accessible there, through the QR code and the links. These articles reflect a generational change in priorities and how young people around the world are increasingly finding meaning in other pursuits. They may not even see marriage or parenthood as important life goals.

Our falling TFR has serious implications for Singapore's future. We are already seeing the impact of our falling TFR on our society. Families today are smaller than before, with more sandwiched couples having to care for both the young and old. A growing proportion of Singaporeans are remaining single and will have weaker familial support networks when they grow older.

Our falling TFR will also impact our economy. As several Members have mentioned, a strong and vibrant economy is critical for Singapore, as it helps raise our standard of living and gives us resources to tackle challenges. However, a vibrant economy is ultimately driven by people. With fewer births, we will face a shrinking workforce. It will be increasingly challenging to maintain our dynamism, attract global businesses and create opportunities for the next generation.

This has been the experience of countries like South Korea and Italy, who are grappling with economic slowdowns and declining wages, further compounded by low fertility and the resulting demographic changes. We are therefore determined to address these challenges. The bright side is that our young Singaporeans still aspire towards marriage and parenthood. However, as several Members have noted, they may not proactively plan towards these goals.

As a Government, we respect Singaporeans' personal decisions on marriage and parenthood. But there is no denying that starting a family becomes more challenging with age. Singaporeans may prioritise their education or careers in young adulthood, only to face difficulty conceiving when they eventually try for children. We therefore strongly encourage young Singaporeans to actively build and develop relationships and intentionally factor marriage and parenthood into their life plans early on.

Several Members have asked on how we will support marriage and parenthood. We will provide a conducive environment for couples who wish to start, grow and nurture their families. We made significant moves in this regard at Budget 2023. To support working parents, we doubled Government-Paid Paternity Leave to four weeks on a voluntary basis. We also increased Unpaid Infant Care Leave to 12 days per parent per year in their child's first two years. To strengthen financial support for young families, we enhanced the Baby Bonus Cash Gift for all birth orders. We also enhanced the Child Development Account, or CDA, by increasing the First Step Grant and raising the Government co-matching caps.

We are continuing to address the housing needs of Singaporean couples and families. The Housing and Development Board (HDB) has ramped up Build-to-Order (BTO) supply and remains on track to launch 100,000 BTO flats from 2021 to 2025. Furthermore, HDB is catching up on BTO projects delayed by the pandemic, having delivered 80% of such projects as of end-2023.

As announced at the National Day Rally last year, the new framework of Standard, Plus and Prime flats will take effect later this year, and cater to Singaporean families' different budgets and needs. The Ministry of National Development (MND) will help families awaiting the completion of their BTO flats by doubling the supply of flats under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme, or PPHS, to 4,000 units by 2025. In the meantime, as announced at Budget 2024, MND will also introduce a one-year PPHS (Open Market) Voucher, to support PPHS-eligible families to rent an HDB flat or bedroom from the open market and MND will share more at its COS.

As Mr Yip Hon Weng highlighted, some couples may also face fertility issues. Couples undergoing Assisted Conception Procedures at our public hospitals can tap on Government co-funding and use their MediSave to offset treatment costs. The Ministry of Health (MOH) is also studying the merits of extending co-funding to the private sector, taking into account clinical outcomes and costs. He asked about elective egg-freezing. Based on preliminary data, approximately 200 women underwent elective egg-freezing since it was implemented in June last year. But whilst this may be an available option for women, we still do encourage them to try for children earlier, to reduce age-related risks of conceiving and carrying a baby successfully to term.

Ms Ng Ling Ling and Ms Hany Soh asked about support to alleviate Singaporeans' concerns regarding child-raising costs. The Government is investing heavily to ensure preschool, education and healthcare remain affordable for families. The Ministry for Social and Family Development (MSF) will lower childcare fee caps in Anchor and Partner Operator Preschools by $40 in 2025 and will lower them again in 2026. MSF will share more at their COS.

Today, a Singaporean child can receive around $200,000 worth of education subsidies, including preschool subsidies, by the time the child completes secondary school. And, of course, there are significant subsidies for studying in the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs).

In addition, all Singaporean babies are covered by MediShield Life from birth and their parents receive a MediSave Grant for newborns to help with the premiums. And Singaporean children also enjoy fully-subsidised nationally-recommended childhood vaccinations and developmental screenings at polyclinics and GP clinics under the Community Health Assist Scheme. We had just enhanced the Baby Bonus Scheme last year and will consider the suggestions raised, bearing in mind the overall suite of grants and subsidies available.

Next, we are also focusing on supporting men in their role as husbands and fathers. Members on both sides of the House support this, and Mr Louis Ng, in particular, has been an active advocate and champion.

Our leave provisions are differentiated between mothers and fathers to meet their respective needs. For example, maternity leave is longer to allow mothers to recuperate physically from childbirth and to care for and bond with their newborns. Nevertheless, parenthood is a shared responsibility. This is especially so, as more women want to continue to work while raising their children.

Currently, around half of our eligible fathers take paternity leave. We encourage more to do so and play a part in caring for your newborns. Studies have shown that children benefit physically, cognitively and emotionally when their fathers are more involved in parenting.

At Budget 2023, we increased Government-Paid Paternity Leave by two weeks effective from 1 January 2024, for fathers whose employers are ready to provide it. One father, Mr Daniel Lim, looks forward to this. He and his wife have two children and are expecting another in April this year. Daniel welcomes the additional paternity leave as it allows him to focus on supporting his wife and caring for his children during this important period.

Mr Louis Ng asked when we will mandate this additional paternity leave. We will do so as soon as possible, to benefit more fathers. In the meantime, we encourage all employers to start adjusting to ensure a smoother transition when the mandatory provision eventually kicks in.

During our Forward Singapore engagements, parents shared that care needs are greatest during a child's first 18 months. We will continue to strengthen support for parents during this critical period. MSF has been ramping up infant care capacity. It also plans to grow childminding services as an additional infant care option for families. MSF will share more at their COS.

That said, we know many Singaporean parents prefer to care for their infants themselves and have asked if more leave can be given. We have studied the leave provisions of other developed countries like France and Denmark which have higher TFRs. These countries tend to provide parents with longer periods of leave during their child's infancy, sometimes at reduced pay. Parents appreciate the greater peace of mind, as they can care for their infants for longer while remaining employed. They can then return to work more easily once their children are older.

We are therefore actively exploring how to increase paid parental leave. We must recognise that this requires workplace adjustments and that employers may face challenges in making arrangements to cover for employees' extended absences. We will therefore closely engage tripartite partners on further enhancements and pace out any proposed changes.

Caring for and raising our children is a long-term endeavour. As Ms Hany Soh and Miss Rachel Ong have pointed out, this can be especially challenging when children fall sick or for certain groups, such as parents of children with severe disabilities or rare disorders. Hence, beyond leave provisions, we are exploring other sustainable ways to help parents better manage work and family commitments. These include flexible work arrangements, or FWAs.

We must strengthen workplace flexibility in a manner that meets the needs of both employees and employers. As Ms Carrie Tan mentioned, we want to provide parents with the flexibility to optimise their energies as they navigate the demands of work and family. At the same time, employers' ability to meet their business needs will be critical in sustaining such flexibility. Through open communication and mutual trust, employers and employees can work out arrangements that meet both their needs.

The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) is working with tripartite partners to develop new Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests. MOM will share more at their COS.

Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked about Government support for companies. We recognise that some employees, including SMEs, may find it more challenging to adopt FWAs. We will consider ways to help all employers implement FWAs well and manage their teams productively. These are HR capabilities that will enable our employers to optimise their workforce and position themselves as employers of choice.

We are glad to see more employers distinguishing themselves by implementing family-friendly practices and features. One such local company is Hegen, which develops infant care products. Hegen offers its employees various forms of workplace flexibility, including work-from-home arrangements, staggered hours, part-time work and compressed work schedules. Hegen's family-friendly culture has helped the company to attract and retain talent, showing that businesses can pursue excellence and innovation while at the same time implementing family-friendly practices.

We encourage all employers to establish family-friendly workplaces and make a difference in practical ways. For example, fathers ought to feel supported when taking time off for their families. A CNA report cited an example of a father who wanted to take paternity leave, but encountered resistance from his female manager. She made passive-aggressive comments and pointed to the backlog of work he would accumulate if he did so. It would have been more helpful to discuss a mutually satisfactory covering arrangement instead.

4.00 pm

Employer support can also include family-friendly office features, such as lactation rooms, which Mr Louis Ng spoke about. The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) has progressively enhanced the building design requirements for lactation rooms and will continue to review them. We encourage building owners to voluntarily provide such family-friendly features beyond the minimum Code requirements. Premises which lack space for separate lactation facilities can consider lactation pods which are commercially available.

Building owners, lessors and lessees of eligible private developments may also tap on BCA’s Accessibility Fund to co-fund the construction costs of such features as well as lactation pods. BCA has actively promoted the Fund via press releases, social media posts, industry seminars and targeted engagements. They will continue to reach out to building owners to encourage adoption.

But ultimately, it will require a whole-of-society effort to build the family-friendly workplace culture that Members have called for. All of us have a role to play, whether as parents, employers or co-workers.

We want parents to be able to tap on workplace flexibilities without fear of stigma. Every small act counts, from exercising patience when a colleague’s child interrupts a work call, to being understanding when a co-worker takes time off at short notice to care for their children. We also trust that parents will tap on these flexibilities responsibly, and stand ready to reciprocate when other colleagues have urgent personal or family needs to attend to. Together, we can make Singapore a great place for all to work and live in, for generations to come.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about supporting the needs of an ageing population. Indeed, a key thrust of Forward Singapore is enabling our seniors to age well. Primarily, we want our seniors to have good health. Good health is a lifelong commitment, as lifestyles in earlier years affect how healthy we are in our golden years. Therefore, we will step up the preventive health focus through Healthier SG, to empower Singaporeans to live healthily with support from their regular family doctor.

We also want our seniors to age well in their homes and the community. This is the key purpose of Age Well SG, which complements Healthier SG by anchoring ageing well in the community. Through Age Well SG, we will encourage active ageing, improve support for seniors with care needs, and make our homes and neighbourhoods more senior-friendly. MOH, MND and MOT will share more information on their Age Well SG plans during their respective Committee of Supply segments.

Mr Gan asked about the number of Migrant Domestic Workers, or MDWs, needed to support our ageing population. We expect that demand for elderly caregiving services will rise in the coming years, and MDWs play an important role in supporting households with caregiving needs. However, the scale of this increase is uncertain. It will be dependent on a host of factors, including how well our society ages and other efforts to support seniors with care needs.

Even as we strive to support Singaporeans in their marriage and parenthood aspirations, and help seniors live healthier and more fulfilling lives, low birth rates and ageing will undeniably impact our economy and society.

Our immigration policies play an important role in mitigating this. In 2023, we granted about 23,500 new citizenships, including about 1,300 to children born overseas to Singaporean parents. We also granted about 34,500 new Permanent Residencies (PRs).

We continue to maintain a measured and stable pace of immigration, which moderates the impact of demographic trends on the size and age profile of the citizen population. The average number of new citizenships and new PRs granted per year since 2019 is slightly higher than that over the preceding period. We grant PR or citizenship to those who can integrate well, contribute to Singapore and are committed to making Singapore their home.

Our immigration policy also helps us to meet our future population needs. For example, in recent years, we have granted a higher number of PRs to healthcare workers to support our growing healthcare needs.

One such immigrant is Ms Josephine Marie Baljon Celis, who was granted PR in 2023. She has been a valued staff nurse at SingHealth Community Hospitals for almost 15 years, consistently delivering a high standard of care to her patients. Josephine’s colleagues describe her as friendly, positive and dedicated to her work. Beyond her core nursing duties, she has served as a Clinical Instructor for many years, guiding and training numerous batches of nursing students to help meet Singapore’s healthcare needs. She also does volunteer work.

Like our forefathers, many immigrants have found their way here and stayed on because they hope for a better life in Singapore. With time, they become our friends and ultimately, our fellow countrymen who will work alongside us to build a brighter shared future. But crucial to this brighter shared future is a strong economy, supported by a dynamic and productive workforce.

As Mr Patrick Tay, Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Yip Hon Weng have noted, for Singaporeans to have good jobs, good incomes and access to services for a high quality of life, we need a strong economy.

Our low birth rates and ageing population have resulted in slowing local workforce growth. Even with immigrants, we do not have enough working locals to support continued good economic growth. We must, therefore, remain open to a diverse foreign workforce that complements the local workforce. Foreign workers create value for Singaporeans, for example, by filling manpower gaps in sectors that Singaporeans are less keen to work in, or in disciplines where we may need more time to develop our own pool of local workers. They can also generate opportunities for Singaporeans by bringing in new investments, networks and expertise.

So, even as we welcome these complementary foreign workers, we will continue to strengthen the development of the local workforce. As detailed in the Forward Singapore report, SkillsFuture is a key pillar of our social compact.

We will also support Singaporeans in gaining overseas work experience to provide opportunities for career development and progression. More information will be provided during MTI’s and MOM’s Committee of Supply segments, and we encourage all Singaporeans to make the most of these opportunities.

Mr Chairman, I have outlined how our marriage and parenthood, immigration and workforce policies work in tandem to help us overcome our population challenges. However, these policies can only succeed if we remain an inclusive society.

Globally, sentiments of disenfranchisement and xenophobia have gained momentum. A growing number of politicians across the world have stoked xenophobia to gain popular support. Some have been voted into office, the result of which has been division and instability.

We must not go down that path. The well-being of Singaporeans remains at the heart of what we do. But this does not prevent us from welcoming foreigners who can contribute to our economy and add richness to our multicultural society.

And we must, of course, also work hard at integration. This response extends to the enquiry Mr Faisal Manap made about how we can welcome Malays and others from the region to come and join us. All that I said earlier about welcoming foreigners here extends to those groups as well.

So, in conclusion, Mr Chairman, Singaporeans and their well-being are at the heart of our population strategies. These strategies aim to build a resilient nation, anchored on the key thrusts of the Forward Singapore Report: opportunities, assurance and collective responsibility.

The Government is committed to building an economy that will provide opportunities for all to achieve their aspirations. The Government will also provide assurance for Singaporeans at every stage of life. We will not let up on efforts to support Singaporeans in starting and raising families so that we may forge a strong Singaporean citizenry.

For this to happen, we need everyone to do their part. While some of the bolder changes and mindset shifts may require more time, I call on everyone – individuals, families, employers and communities – to contribute towards shaping a Singapore that is Made for Families so that we can secure our future and thrive for years to come.

The Chairman: Are there any clarifications for Minister Indranee? Ms Hany Soh.

Ms Hany Soh: Thank you, Chairman. This is in relation to the Government's co-funding scheme for Assisted Conception Procedures (ACP). I can understand what Ministers have shared earlier on the rationale behind why we want to provide the better subsidy schemes for those who are below 40 years old.

But through my interactions with several of the residents that have approached me for support and help, I can also understand that, generally, as women, we want to try our best to conceive naturally and without resorting to undergo ACP like IVF, unless circumstances require us to do so. Several of them, due to factors that are beyond their control, have entered marriage at a later stage and have eventually resorted to trying attempts at IVFs but have failed.

I do hope that the Government can exercise flexibility in acceding to those appeals for those that have put in the effort and have unfortunately failed two attempts of the IVF trials and, as a result, have sought us to seek support for more additional fundings in order to eventually fulfil their dreams to become a parent.

Ms Indranee Rajah: I thank Ms Soh for her clarification. We do have a lot of sympathy for those who, for whatever reason, were not able to try for children earlier. The only thing is that the fact remains that age does remain a factor. It does affect the success or the outcomes. So, we can certainly look at it and study it and, as time goes by, if technology gets better, if there are advances and improvements in medical science, then we can see how that can be done.

This comes under the purview of MOH. We will certainly refer it to them. We will do our utmost but, at the same time, just to remember, age is a factor. So, where possible, if we can encourage Singaporeans to have children earlier, that would be really the best solution.

The Chairman: Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, I thank the Minister for her response to my questions. The Minister, if I heard right, said that the population projections by 2050 will depend on trends in fertility and longevity. I understand there might be some concerns about publicly revealing population projections but does the Government have any internal projections for the population in 2040 and 2050 based on the different scenarios? Because in 2013, I recall that the Government was able to project our population until 2030. Now, in 2024, why is it not possible to project it until at least 2040?

Ms Indranee Rajah: The difference really is that planning for the future has become a lot more complex. There are a lot more variables. It is not like when Singapore was first starting off and you have a clear trajectory and you can say that there is this projection. So, having one particular figure does not really help because you would have a range of scenarios. That is what I was trying to explain just now.

Essentially, there are birth rates, TFR, we have just seen that it has fallen to an all-time low, life expectancy, deaths, migrations. So, basically, for the Ministries to plan, they have to plan on a range of scenarios and not all of them will plan on the same variables. For example, if it is public housing, you would just look at Singaporeans, when you plan your BTOs. But, obviously, if you are looking at some other things, then you would take into account the foreigners who work here as well.

One of the strategies we have for this is modular planning. So, for example, if you were building something like T5, you do not have to build the whole thing straightaway to take into account a very large number that is coming through. You would build stage one and then if it looks like you are having more traffic, then you can build stage two. We apply some of that when we are planning for public housing, for transport. So, having one particular figure does not really address the issue. I think for the agencies, they are learning over the years, to plan within a range of scenarios.

The Chairman: Mr Louis Ng.

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Thank you, Sir. Can I ask again on paternity leave? Rather than just have ASAP, whether we can have a firm timeline on when we will mandate the extra two weeks of paternity leave. I think that is important for the fathers, but most important is for the companies, especially for the SMEs, which can then plan ahead and have resources made available in time for when we mandate this. I mean, we do this for carbon tax, where we are given a whole roadmap on when we will increase carbon tax so that companies can get ready. I hope we can do this also for paternity leave.

Second, on lactation rooms, we do have the Accessibility Fund. I am just wondering whether the Government can consider increasing the co-payment. The current rate is at 60%; whether it can increase it to 80%. Similar for accessible toilets, so that more building owners perhaps will be spurred on to build the lactation rooms and this will help the breastfeeding mothers as well.

Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Chairman, Mr Louis Ng is right that the companies do need time to implement it if we make paternity leave mandatory. So, this is something that we are looking at and the Member can be assured that as and when it does become mandatory, actually when it does become mandatory, it will factor in a lead-in time for the companies as well. And I thank him for his suggestions with respect to the building code. We will look at that.

4.15 pm

The Chairman: Are there any clarifications for Senior Minister Teo? Earlier on, I did not see any Members raise their hand, so I moved on. Now, I do not see any. Senior Minister Teo is asking too, whether there are any for him? No? Okay. Mr Ong Hua Han.

Tackling Discrimination in Insurance

Mr Ong Hua Han (Nominated Member): Mr Chairman, in my speech during the Budget Statement debate, I spoke at length about including persons with disabilities (PwDs) and why this is important. During the Committee of Supply debates, I will be shifting our focus more towards the "hows" to inclusion.

Let me start this series of cuts by calling for more concrete ways to tackle discrimination in insurance practices. Sir, discrimination by insurers affects the lives of many Singaporeans – particularly those living with disabilities. This raises the issue of fairness and it demands action.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore’s (MAS’) guidelines for insurance fair practice will soon address indiscriminate rejection of coverage applications. As an illustration: today, individuals with disabilities like Mr A, often encounter insurer assessments that exclude them from total and permanent disability benefits. In Mr A's case, Asperger's Syndrome and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) had been explicitly cited as reasons for his exclusion when he applied for a whole life insurance policy.

Unfortunately, Mr A's experience is not unique. PwDs who contribute meaningfully to society or hold stable employment, frequently face similar rejections or exclusions. Often, outright denials or vague explanations of underwriting decisions are also given. This reflects a systemic failure in our insurance industry that disproportionately harms PwDs. There is no transparency in the insurer's decision-making process.

Ultimately, PwDs are left guessing and are denied the insurance coverage they need and deserve. Therefore, we need appropriate measures that mandate insurers to disclose the data, research and methodologies used in the assessments to their customers and regulators, such as MAS and MOH. This will empower not just PwDs – but all affected Singaporeans – including those with mental health conditions, physical conditions or unrelated illnesses, to challenge unfair decisions and hold insurers accountable.

Where necessary, MAS must also step in to take decisive action against insurers that indiscriminately reject applications – solely based on disability or mental health declarations. Every application must be objectively assessed by the insurer, based on reliable information or data relevant to the risks being insured and auditable.

Clear examples of what is considered discrimination will provide clarity and guidance to insurers to ensure compliance with fair and transparent practices. Could MAS provide a non-exhaustive list of illustrations to show what constitutes discrimination? The use of irrelevant and discriminatory criteria in risk assessments is a barrier that must be addressed.

Insurers must be prohibited from using factors, such as intelligence quotient (IQ) levels or academic ability, in their underwriting assessments. Other factors, like sensorimotor skills, must be evaluated judiciously and holistically under strict conditions and only when directly relevant to specific insurance policies and aligned with ethical and regulatory standards.

Unfair or sweeping assessment practices not only perpetuate stigma, but also ignore the diverse experiences and capabilities of PwDs. Autistics have shared with me that they feel discriminated against when insurers exclude coverage for certain conditions – especially those related to mental health.

SG Enable says that autism is a range of conditions – characterised by difficulties in communication and social interaction, sensitivity to sensory stimulation and repetitive behaviour. Autism is not a medical condition, it is a neurological difference. Therefore, even if research shows a high correlation between autism and a particular condition, it is unfair to exclude coverage.

To achieve meaningful change, MAS should take in input from disability organisations and PwDs to refine the guidelines and monitor insurance practices. Their insights and perspectives are invaluable in ensuring that the needs and rights of PwDs are upheld and protected.

Yes, private insurance is ultimately a business and insurers need to consider the risks presented by each policyholder to charge premiums reflective of the risk.

However, this does not mean that insurers should be allowed to discriminate against any community in Singapore – including PwDs. By addressing the systemic discrimination in insurance, we can build a more inclusive and equitable society where all Singaporeans, regardless of disability, can access the financial protection they need to live with dignity and security. This will strongly signal the Government's commitment to work towards withdrawing its reservation of Article 25(e) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).

Insurance Coverage for PwDs of Persons with Special Needs

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Chairman, PwDs or special needs often receive inadequate insurance coverage to cover to protect themselves. Even if they manage to get insured, the scope of coverage and the insured amounts is often limited.

MAS is proposing to issue guidelines to insurers that they should not indiscriminately reject an application, solely based on a declared personal information subject to disability. Instead, insurers are expected to carry out an objective assessment of every application, based on reliable information or data relevant to the risk being insured.

However even under the new proposed guidelines, insurers are not prohibited from declining applications, setting higher premiums or applying conditions in view of the risks presented by an applicant with a disability. Can the Minister explain when these guidelines will be issued and how they will be materially different or more beneficial to PwDs or special needs?

Safeguarding Bank Customers

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Sir, in this environment of pervasive online scams, the Government should ensure that bank customers are adequately and fairly protected – both in prevention and in compensation. On this, I will raise two points today: developments in Australia and on Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre Ltd (FIDReC).

First, on developments in Australia. In November last year, the Australian treasury issued a consultation paper on proposed industry codes for the private sector in combating scams – named the Scams Code Framework. The proposed Australian framework is consumer focused. The extensive obligations on banks, include training of staff, detecting, blocking, verifying and tracing scams; and the need to implement anti-scam systems that are responsive to new products, services, designs and technologies. Importantly, it requires businesses to take all reasonable steps to prevent the misuse of its services by scammers, "so that an undue burden is not placed on consumers to prevent scams." As far as Singapore is concerned, I acknowledge MAS' work, particularly in coming up with the two consultation papers in October on the Shared Responsibility Framework for phishing scams and on the proposed enhancements to the E-payments User Protection Guidelines (EUPG).

That said, the EUPG paper while imposing some duties on financial institutions, also has a whole section on how consumers should also be subject to enhanced duties – including preventive actions such as updating the browsers of devices and patching operating systems with the latest security updates. How does the MAS assess whether these duties are reasonable, given the wide demographic profile of consumers?

Second, FIDReC announced in January a public consultation on raising its monetary limit in adjudication cases – from $100,000 to $150,000. As few customers have the resources to sue their banks in Court, FIDReC is an important low-cost avenue for bank customers to seek redress. Should FIDReC consider raising its limit to $200,000, which is the daily threshold for PayNow transactions for consumers?

The Chairman: Minister of State Alvin Tan.

The Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan): Chairman, with your permission, I will be taking clarifications after this reply – if there is available time. I thank the Members for their questions and comments.

Allow me to start first by addressing Mr Ong Hua Han's and Mr Gerald Giam's questions on adopting fair and responsible practices towards PwDs and persons with mental health conditions. The MAS expects all insurers to deal fairly with their customers, including PwDs and persons with mental health conditions.

Over the past three years, MAS has reinforced these expectations with insurers. Let me explain how.

First, MAS has carefully reviewed individual cases that have been highlighted to us to ascertain that customers were treated fairly.

Second, MAS has worked with the MSF to consult relevant medical professionals and industry practitioners – to ensure that the underwriting standards of the insurance industry, in particular for PwDs and persons with mental health conditions, are grounded in scientific evidence and data.

Third, MAS has also worked with insurers to better explain underwriting outcomes to applicants. The upcoming revision to the MAS Guidelines on Fair Dealing – Board and Senior Management Responsibilities for Delivering Fair Dealing Outcomes to Customers, which Members have raised, formalises all of these expectations. MAS and MSF have engaged individuals and groups representing PwDs as well as industry practitioners in the process of refining these guidelines.

Under the proposed guidelines, an example of inappropriate differential treatment would be to reject an application solely on the basis of declared personal information, such as a disability or a medical condition. This would fall short of the expectation for insurers to conduct an objective assessment of every application, based on reliable information or data relevant to the risks that are being insured.

This applies to all types of insurance policies. Where an application is rejected or accepted with condition, insurers are to properly explain to the applicant the basis of the decision. This will also be set out in the revised guidelines, which we expect to issue by the middle of this year.

In other words, insurers should not reject applications from PwDs and persons with mental health conditions without an assessment. And after they have conducted the detailed assessments, the insurers may choose to accept applications as is, with higher premiums or with specific benefits excluded.

There may also be instances where the insurers assess the risks to be large and, therefore, are unable to provide coverage. Such cases are unlikely to be unique to Singapore, as insurers typically reference the underwriting guidelines of re-insurers which operate internationally, to which insurers would also transfer some of the risks.

Why? The reason is that prescribing a "one-size-fits-all" assessment criteria on underwriting would result in some insurers taking on risks that exceed their underwriting expertise and capacity, which will not be prudentially sound. It could also have unintended consequences. For example, it could impair access to insurance protection if insurers stop providing coverage under such circumstances.

Where the ability of insurers to adjust coverage and premiums for higher-risk individuals is constrained, it could then also lead to higher premiums for policyholders who pose lower risks. But I would like to assure the Members that MAS will closely monitor the effective and consistent application and implementation of the revised guidelines. This is part of our ongoing supervision of insurers.

This will include reviewing the insurers' underwriting policies and processes, including via on-site inspections, to ensure that insurers maintain robust underwriting frameworks that are in line with MAS' regulatory requirements, supervisory expectations and sound international practice.

When an insurer is found to have fallen short, or found to be dealing unfairly with its customers, MAS will take appropriate supervisory actions, such as directing the insurer to review their policies and processes to prevent a recurrence, and to review applications of the affected customers.

Individuals who have concerns over their insurer's underwriting decision can make an appeal through their insurer's feedback channel. In this vein, MAS expects insurers to have a robust process to handle customer complaints independently and effectively. Individuals can also write to MAS, and MAS will investigate accordingly.

Let me turn to Ms Sylvia Lim's cut. Ms Sylvia Lim asked about efforts to safeguard bank customers' interests. I would like to thank her, as well as Mr Derrick Goh in his speech yesterday, for raising this very important topic, and also for recognising and acknowledging the hard work that MAS – in partnership with our banking industry – has put in place to protect customers against scams.

Other Members of Parliament, such as Dr Tan Wu Meng, Dr Lim Wee Kiak, Miss Rachel Ong, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Mr Gerald Giam, have also spoken about this and advocated strongly about this topic in this House.

4.30 pm

In her Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) COS speech, Minister of State Sun Xueling will more comprehensively outline the efforts by Government agencies and private sector entities to raise our collective defences against scams. These include initiatives and measures that have been explored under the guidance of MAS, such as the banks’ recent anti-malware controls, and the Shared Responsibility Framework (SRF) to strengthen the direct accountability of financial institutions and telcos to consumers.

Our efforts are bearing fruit, especially for unauthorised transactions. The number of reported phishing cases in 2023 decreased by 16% compared to 2022, and the amounts lost decreased by 14%. The incidence of malware enabled scams has also reduced significantly after major retail banks introduced anti-malware security features on their banking apps.

Despite this progress, we are not resting on our laurels; we will continue to push on. MAS will build on this progress by continuing to work with banks to further strengthen anti-scam controls. We will better safeguard funds by encouraging people to adopt Money Lock, and enhancing Money Lock's functionality.

MAS is also working with banks to improve their fraud surveillance capabilities and to strengthen authentication measures at account logins and when making payment transactions. Admittedly, these will add more friction to the banking process, but we acknowledge and understand that these will better safeguard customers’ interests and also reduce the amounts lost through scams in the longer term.

I would like to highlight to Members that today, the bulk of scams and amounts lost are cases involving authorised transactions, as compared to unauthorised transactions. Authorised transactions are transactions where victims willingly transfer monies to scammers under social engineering and deception. We cannot address such scams directly through banking sector-related safeguards alone. What we need is a vigilant public. We must all take steps to protect ourselves, by keeping up with new scam typologies which are rapidly evolving; and also banking controls, and checking for signs of scams. MAS and banks will continue to support national public education efforts, including the Government’s broader public education under the “Add, Check and Tell” anti-scam campaign.

I thank Ms Lim for her suggestions. We have made some collective progress together, but we must and we will continue to strengthen all of these initiatives that I have outlined to help further safeguard bank customers’ interests.

The Chairman: Are there any clarifications? Yes, Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: I thank Minister of State Tan for responding. Sir, from what I understand from his reply, the guidelines will only benefit PwDs if insurers had hitherto been applying inappropriate differential treatment indiscriminately. But even if insurers properly followed all their underwriting principles, many PwDs will still find themselves excluded.

Does the Government have any plans to step in to assist these PwDs who do not have enough coverage?

Mr Alvin Tan: I thank Mr Gerald Giam for his clarification. In fact, we have received feedback on this through Mr Ong Hua Han, Mr Gerald Giam and others who have written directly to us, both at MAS and MOH.

Maybe what I can share is that MAS has not found instances where insurers have indiscriminately rejected applications by PwDs in our review of cases highlighted to us thus far. But we are doing a few things to ensure that overall, both insurers and the applicants are able to understand what PwDs and persons with mental health conditions require, and their circumstances. So, let me enumerate a few different aspects, so that it is rather comprehensive.

Government agencies are committed to continue working with stakeholders to improve the accessibility to PwDs and overall to provide greater assurance that PwDs are treated fairly. I explained that in my reply. In this regard, MSF, partners such as the Autism Resource Centre, the Life Insurance Association and us have embarked in the following efforts – and I hope that the Members can also support us in these efforts.

First, it is important to further enhance the awareness and understanding on PwDs and the various support systems in Singapore. This is to enable insurers themselves to better take into account all of these different factors in their underwriting. That is one.

The second is to provide further training on communications with PwDs.

Third, to raise an overall awareness on health underwriting among consumers, including PwDs.

Fourth, we are working on this – to explore initiatives to further improve the insurance application process.

Later on, in the middle of this year when the guidelines are out, many of these, as I mentioned earlier on, will be put in place, but there are also ongoing efforts to increase awareness in this regard. So, it is ongoing. And I think we are in line with international best practices. But it is an iterative process, it is an evolving process.

The Chairman: Ms Sylvia Lim.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Chairman. I have two broad clarifications for the Minister of State. During his response he mentioned several times about closely the MAS is working with banks to come up with guidelines, preventive measures. But he did not say anything about how MAS was working with consumers at all, before the draft guidelines are issued.

For instance, like I mentioned in my cut, the EUPG paper that sets out the enhanced duties of consumers. Were any consumers consulted about whether these duties are reasonable before the draft guidelines came out? So, the first clarification is about how MAS works with consumers, if at all, before it comes up with such guidelines in this area.

Secondly, on the Australian example, I did point this out to him earlier that I was going to raise it. I think he would have noticed from what was being proposed by the Australian Treasury was that actually there would be a consumer protection body at the top of the apex when it came to looking at consumer interests in the scam space. This body actually has an overarching responsibility that cuts across sectors – banking, telcos, digital platforms – all that would sort of come under that consumer protection umbrella and there is going to be legislation, I believe, intended for this.

I find that in Singapore, this is missing. There is no consumer protection overarching body that seems to be looking across the different industry sectors on whether consumers are getting a fair deal. So, I wonder if he can comment on whether he thinks that such a body would actually add value to our interest in protecting consumers.

Mr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank Ms Sylvia Lim for her feedback. Maybe I will just add, on the EUPG first. The EUPG, as you compared to the Australia's E-Payments Code; there is a list of consumer duties within the EUPG, as the Member had mentioned. And these are cyber hygiene duties that the consumer ought to perform. And that is why as a whole, I think that is very, very important, not just for duties by banks, telcos; but also in order to address scams, the consumers need to play an important role.

They are also in line with public education efforts that the Government has been reinforcing. We also expect banks to treat customers fairly and take into account the specifics of the scams and the profile of the victims.

We are assessing this feedback on both in SRF as well as EUPG, and in many of the different consultations, we reach out to consumers. That is one. And we get their feedback.

The second on the SRF, the topic about the Australian example is the Scams Code Framework. The Scams Code Framework is quite similar to our SRF. SRF will be operational by the first half of this year. In the same way, it also looks at duties by financial institutions as well as telcos. I think the Australian example has other sectors as well that are inputted into this. We had mentioned in the SRF that we will continue to review it and see how these duties can be applied and where possible and where it is appropriate, we are looking at different countries' experiences with it and we may expand it. The SRF is not set in stone. We will review and it will evolve over time.

But I would also like to share with the Member that the experiences in different countries are also very different. The scam typologies are also very different. The way that the banks, the telcos, operators and other aspects within the ecosystem that deal with this issue is also very different. So, I want to assure her and I assure the Members that we continue to take all of these into account.

We studied the Australian Code. It is very similar to SRF. But we will continue to review them over time.

The Chairman: Ms Lim, I will come back to you because I just want to clear the rest of the cuts, and if we have time, I will come back to you. Mr Patrick Tay.

Equipping the Public Service

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan: The plethora and spectrum of issues confronting the Public Service are becoming more complex and cut across agencies. For example, COVID-19 showed that public health pandemic had implications on many other aspects such as the economy, education, work, social connections and support.

Beyond COVID-19, we also see families with more complex needs cutting across multiple areas such as jobs, healthcare, education, emotional support and financial assistance. We are also seeing major changes on other fronts such as geopolitics, generative AI and sustainability. To tackle challenges ahead that are becoming more complex, the Public Service must review and refresh its agenda.

To help develop and deliver this, public officers must also build new skills and experiences to better understand changing citizen needs. Public officers also need to understand changing external forces as geopolitics become more complex and even issues like sustainability have global dimensions and ramifications.

Generative AI has also morphed the way we can and should do things ethically and without compromising data security and confidentiality. How is the Government equipping the public service, including our officers, with the right skills, experiences and perspectives for the future?

Better Service Delivery for Residents

Mr Yip Hon Weng: Chairman, as Singapore navigates an increasingly complex future, our residents' needs will grow even more diverse and interconnected. We must shift from agency-centric services to citizen-centric ones. We can no longer expect Singaporeans to navigate bureaucratic silos, going from agency to agency to access essential assistance for multiple needs which are in fact interconnected.

Imagine a scenario where families in need seamlessly access financial aid, job training, housing assistance and healthcare for seniors, all through a single, integrated platform. This holistic approach, where services revolve around residents rather than agencies, is not just a vision but a necessity today.

Initiatives like ServiceSG and the Municipal Services Office have made strides towards service integration. Can the Minister provide an update on the progress and impact of these initiatives. Can the Minister also share the Government's broader roadmap for further integrating and streamlining citizens’ access to services.

While digitalisation holds immense potential and we should continue to pursue this as much as possible, physical accessibility remains critical for those who need it. Can the Minister share plans to expand dedicated physical service counters for seniors and individuals lacking digital literacy?

Can the Minister also elaborate on the existing mechanisms for escalation across agencies, and how timely resolution is ensured? What are the types of cases that usually fall through the cracks? How is the Ministry addressing such cases to ensure no citizens are left behind?

Conflict of Interest Update

Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Sir, trust between elected officials and public servants on one side, and the public on the other, is important for a well-functioning political system. It is important to maintain and enhance this relationship.

Yet, ties between state and society do not exist in a vacuum. As Singapore becomes an ever more important commercial and financial hub, more money and interests will flow into Singapore. They will have interests to advance and protect. Doing so may involve lobbying. It may involve the appointment of sitting Members of Parliament to boards or the hiring of former Members of Parliament and senior public servants to advise on the shaping of policy and legislation. We often see events by industry associations and others attended by elected officials.

Lobbying happens in all systems. Yet what is important is how a system regulates lobbying to ensure that the proper political process is not circumvented, and there is no undue disadvantage given to different groups in society, especially those with less money, access and voice. To this end, how can we improve oversight on lobbying activities given Singapore’s changing circumstances?

4.45 pm

Specifically, what prevents Singapore from passing legislation on lobbying? Such a law could include publicly available registers of lobbyists, lobbying contact with political appointees, Members of Parliament, and very senior public servants, as well as board memberships of Members of Parliament. Some of this information is already provided by political parties under legislation governing political donations and the recently enacted Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act, or FICA.

Some will say that such a move is not foolproof. Nothing is. The perfect cannot become an enemy of the good. Properly regulating lobbying activity and addressing potential conflicts of interest reduces chances of excessive influence by certain groups and a shorting of political processes. It is an improvement on the current absence of formal regulation.

Some may find allowing more public scrutiny onerous. Building public trust in increasingly complex situations also comes with those in positions of authority trusting the public, not just calling on the public to trust authority. This not only must be done but must be seen to be done.

Asset Declaration for Ministers

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Incorruptibility is fundamental to the success of the Singapore Government. Yet, public declaration of assets by Ministers is not practised here although Ministers do disclose this information as well as company directorships to the President via the Prime Minister in confidence as per the Code of Conduct for Ministers.

As described in the Code of Conduct, this would help counter potential allegations of corruption and unexplained wealth, and to avoid potential conflicts between private interests and public responsibilities. Public declarations would thus go a long way in ensuring public accountability, the Singaporeans to whom the executive serves, and not just accountability to the President.

In countries like the United Kingdom (UK), Ministers are required to disclose their financial interests publicly, including investment properties. Perhaps we can consider adopting such a practice in Singapore as well. Such declarations would go some way to bridge the trust gap between Singaporeans and their elected officials, and also help to prevent the spread of misinformation.

For a start, we need not make the full disclosures of sensitive details mandatory. For example, in the case of residential properties, unit numbers can be redacted to protect the privacy of the Minister involved.

I am sure that this practice will be appreciated by Singaporeans. The question of whether our Ministers can be trusted to scrupulously avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest between their official duties and private financial interests, as the Ministers' Code of Conduct requires them to do, has been raised before in this house.

During a Parliamentary Session on the rental of 26 Ridout Road last year, People's Action Party Member of Parliament Poh Li San suggested that it would be in the interest of transparency for Minister Shanmugam and Minister Vivian to declare all their property assets. However, this was not a requirement under the Code of Conduct at the time. It should be.

Building a Future-ready Public Service

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Chairman, we are currently operating in an increasingly hostile global environment – one that is marked by fear, uncertainty and doubt. For Singapore to successfully navigate ourselves through these uncertain waters, we must ensure that our Public Service officers have broad perspectives so that they are equipped to take on the challenges of the future.

I would like to ask how does the Public Service Division (PSD) intend to prepare its officers to expand their perspectives beyond the Public Service? How many Public Service officers have been seconded out of the public sector annually over the past five years? Does PSD plan to allow more of its officers to go on such secondments?

Beyond secondments to private sector and civil society, we should also groom officers to better appreciate international viewpoints and equip them with the ability to negotiate globally. Does PSD offer structured programmes for public sector officers to take on attachments at international and regional organisations?

I hope that the PSD will provide officers with a structured framework for rotation outside of the Public Service. This will allow future Public Service leaders to better understand the private sector, social sector and the international domain, and factor these perspectives when conceptualising and implementing policies.

Reorganising the Public Service

Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Chairman, the global environment is becoming increasingly challenging and susceptible to rapid change. As a country, we also have matured and are now in transition.

To imagine and chart our future as a nation will require greater engagement and partnership between the Government and Singaporeans. For one, the Government does not have a monopoly on the best ideas. Further, the Government's aim is to serve our citizens and closer engagement is necessary to better gauge citizens' trust and satisfaction in public services and institutions.

The recent Forward SG exercise, launched in June 2022 to engage Singaporeans from all walks of life, has laid out a new social compact for Singapore. To move towards this new compact, changes are expected to be made in both Government policies and the way the Government engages and partners Singaporeans in creating and delivering policies and programmes.

The formation of the new Singapore Government Partnerships Office (SGPO) is an example of how the Government is reorganising itself to support the new partnership and engagement approach set out under Forward SG. It is a welcome move to strengthen partnerships between the Government, private and people sectors for the national good. The new organisation could become the first stop for people to share ideas or proposals, gather other like-minded individuals and organisations, and access opportunities for citizen-government collaborations.

Beyond the formation of the SGPO, may I ask how is the Public Service reorganising itself to better serve citizens and public good amid a changing environment and more frequent volatility? How can we better set ourselves up to tackle increasingly complex external forces and growing interdependency of issues as well as the build-up of complex domestic matters.

Public Service for Good Movement

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Chairman, many officers who join the Public Service are driven by the higher purpose of doing good, wanting to serve and make a difference to Singapore. Public officers can do good both through their, or during their work, or outside of work, fostering a culture of civic and engagement and social responsibility.

To this end, Minister Chan Chun Sing had announced last year that the Public Service is launching the Public Service for Good movement from July 2023. The movement calls for public officers to get involved in new ways to do good for Singaporeans, beyond their day jobs.

Such a movement is great. It helps foster volunteerism amongst public officers and also improves their understanding of ground issues. In fact, if properly matched, their voluntary services will enrich their beneficiaries with valuable manpower and skills.

I have personally had the opportunity to serve with several senior public officers like Permanent Secretary Teo Zsin Woon and Deputy Secretary Poon Hon Yuen in the disability and the seniors space in initiatives beyond their day jobs. Recently, I also heard that public officers across the Service signed up as befrienders to seniors who live alone in Marine Parade. So, there are many good things happening but not much is known.

I therefore would like to ask the Minister for updates on the progress of the Public Service For Good movement since its launch, and what more can be done to match more public officers to the needs on the ground.

The Chairman: Minister Chan Chun Sing.

The Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Chairman, we thank all the Members for their cuts, questions and suggestions for the Public Service and how we can do better.

Indeed, today we have a Public Service that the vast majority, if not all Singaporeans, can be proud of. But we, in the Public Service, we are acutely aware of the need for us to stay ahead of the game.

As Mr Patrick Tay mentioned, technology is changing rapidly. The way countries are organising themselves and their Public Service are also rapidly evolving. We must be careful that we do not rest on our laurels. We continue to innovate, continue to want to do better and come up with new solutions, lest we be overtaken by others. And if we do not have a strong, committed and innovative Public Service, it will certainly not help us to inspire confidence in investors, local enterprises, to put their investments here to create good jobs for our people.

So, our Government believes that we cannot rely on today's or yesterday's solutions for tomorrow's problem. We have to constantly look for new processes, new organisations, to meet tomorrow's challenges. A forward-looking and future-ready Public Service is central to Singapore's success. Let me share how our Public Service is going to operate, develop and partner differently to ensure that we are ready for the future challenges.

Let me start with how we are going to evolve the way we organise ourselves.

Increasingly, our Public Service will be organised in a much more mission-centric way, given the complexity and interdependency of issues that many Members have mentioned.

For example, to more effectively tackle climate change, we set up the National Climate Change Secretariat (NCCS) in 2010. This has worked out well and borne fruit. NCCS has allowed us to sharpen our focus on climate change issues across the whole of Government, cutting across many agencies. For example, NCCS worked with MSE to develop the Singapore Green Plan 2030 to achieve our long-term goal of net zero emissions. But behind that, there was participation from MTI, MOE, MOM and many other agencies.

In 2019, to better harness the potential of technology, we formed the Public Sector Science and Technology Policy and Plans Office, or what we call S&TPPO. We are seeing the fruits of this effort too. For example, robots are increasingly deployed in buildings for services like cleaning and security, but they cannot communicate with each other because of different manufacturers having their own proprietary software. This is inefficient.

To drive the adoption of robotics and automation, S&TPPO worked with A*STAR and GovTech to adapt and deploy a universal middleware for the Public Service. With this, robots from different manufacturers can now communicate with one another and with lifts, doors and security gantries to move autonomously around buildings. Successful trials have been completed in the Tampines Regional Library and the JTC Summit with the National Library Board (NLB) and JTC. S&TPPO is working with GovTech and the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) to further test the product with other public and private sectors.

Yet another example where they have become much more mission-focused, mission-centric is ground operations. To improve efficiency, S&TPPO and GovTech are working with agencies to apply video analytics rather than just focusing on each agency's own CCTV video feed. S&TPPO is driving the consolidation of these sensitive feeds into a cloud video exchange before applying video analytics to the consolidated video feeds. This can improve decision-making and respond times, such as identifying an overcrowding situation that requires intervention or preventing worksite incidents. We will continue to build on these successes to refine the way we organise ourselves going forward.

In response to Ms Mariam Jaafar's earlier questions to Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong about centralisation, from a Public Service perspective, we just want to say this. Centralisation is not the only way that we can allow better coordination across the various agencies. In fact, depending on the nature of the problem, we have different methods. Sometimes, we may start up a new agency, centralise and put it under the PMO to incubate it. At other times, we may assign one of the agencies to be, if you like, the lead or the first among equals to coordinate that. But that agency, that lead agency, is, if you like, a mini joint staff. It must have people participating from other agencies to support it. Our hope is that over time, each and every one of our agencies, when tackling a new problem, can be a mini joint staff where it can harness the energies and capabilities and capacities of other agencies to come together. So, it does not mean that every new problem that requires more coordination needs to be centralised at the PMO or to create a new agency.

Next, let me respond to Mr Yip Hong Weng's questions on how we reorganise our service delivery for us to be much more citizen-centric.

In 2021, we formed ServiceSG to create a single touchpoint for citizens to access multiple services across agencies. In the digital sphere, we have made great strides in making services more intuitive, seamless and relevant for our citizens, and we will continue to improve.

For example, Singaporeans can use SupportGoWhere, a one-stop portal, to find Government support schemes and services. A key feature is the Care Services Recommender for caregivers to find the support they need easily and conveniently. Another example is MyLegacy@LifeSG portal, which helps citizens plan ahead for end-of-life matters.

Even as more services are digitised, the Public Service is committed to ensuring that our services continue to be accessible and inclusive for all.

Today, citizens can walk into the seven physical ServiceSG centres across Singapore and access close to 600 services and schemes from over 25 agencies.

Seniors who have difficulty making online transactions can simply walk in. Officers are cross-trained to help them access frequently used digital services. And 70% of citizens visiting ServiceSG centres in 2023 were aged 55 and above.

5.00 pm

We will continue to expand the network of ServiceSG centres to prioritise areas with higher demand and concentration of citizens, particularly seniors, who require support with multiple digital transactions. In line with this, two new centres will be established at Woodlands Civic Centre and Bukit Merah Central by the end of 2024.

There are whole-of-Government service standards to ensure agencies uphold a consistent and satisfactory level of service. To avoid cases falling through the cracks, we have a no-wrong-door policy for any public feedback received. We will continue to ensure that our policies, standards and practices are inclusive to all.

For municipal services, the Municipal Services Office (MSO), coordinates across agencies and Town Councils to serve residents. For businesses, MTI and GovTech are continuously evolving the Go Business portal to facilitate a globally competitive, pro-enterprise operating environment in Singapore. The Go Business portal allows businesses to access services across multiple Government agencies by milestone movements.

So, these are just examples of how the Public Service is organising and evolving our organisation to be much more mission-centric and much more citizen-centric.

Let me respond to Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Melvin Yong's cuts on your feedback on how public officers need to cultivate different skill sets and perspectives to thrive in the new operating context.

Within the Service, public officers can gain new skill sets from formal training courses and increasingly through hands-on development opportunities. These range from short-term attachments, what we call Short-term Immersion Programmes (STIP) or gig work, to longer-term job rotations or structured job rotations (SJR). The take-up rate has been good. The number of officers matched to these opportunities jumped five-fold, from 730 in 2021 to 3,700 in 2023.

Just as an example – Service SG Centre Head, Ms Uma, signed up for STIP with the Agency for Integrated Care's (AIC's) Silver Generation Office. She engaged seniors to better understand their concerns and share how Government can support them.

We are happy to report that the people who have gone through this programme have found the cross-pollination of ideas very useful and at the same time it helps them to build the network of relationships required for a much more responsive Government service.

We are also deliberate in exploring alternative modalities such as boot camps and competitions to generate interest in building new capabilities. To build data capabilities, GovTech organises the annual Data Champions Boot Camp and Data Arcade Tournament. To build AI capabilities, GovTech launched a Prom Royale Award, a Prom Engineering Competition last year. This year, GovTech will launch a new AI Champions Boot Camp.

Public officers can also expand their perspectives through exposure beyond the Public Service. We are encouraging the public officers to experience the perspective of citizens and businesses through stints in the private and people sectors, such as the Talent Attachment Programme (TAP).

Under the TAP, Enterprise SG officers like Clarence Tan was attached to DBS Bank's business analytics team. There, he learned how to operate with big commercial data sets to achieve an all-round understanding of customers. These insights were helpful when Clarence subsequently returned to Enterprise SG to use data to further partner businesses on their growth journey.

We have set aside up to 40 hours per year for officers to pursue their own development opportunities outside the public sector. For example, Ivy Lee from NLB volunteered with Friends-in-deed Counselling Society as a certified counsellor. In her journey with three individuals over 10 months, she deepened her empathy and communication skills. This helped her to become a more empathetic middle manager in NLB.

An effective Public Service needs to operate well, both locally and internationally. We are equipping more public officers with broader international perspective through exchange programmes and deployment to international organisations at all levels where they fly the Singapore flag high.

Just to give some examples, Ambassador Rena Lee, who is the current CEO of IPOS, was elected as President of the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) on Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ). In 2018, when she was an officer in Attorney-General's Chambers' (AGC's) International Affairs Division. As IGC President, Rena built upon her strong international networks and mastery of international law, which helped her build bridges during multilateral negotiations.

The success of Ambassador Lee's presidency has entrenched Singapore's standing in the international community as a top leader in international law and as an advocate for a rules-based multilateral system.

Another example, Mr Daryl Ong from the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) participated in a two-year Madrid Fellowship Programme administered by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). Through this, he built his network with other countries' trademark examiners and deepened his knowledge of the Madrid Protocol. Daryl transformed the way trademark data is communicated from IPOS to WIPO to be faster and more accurate. This benefits trademark owners in Singapore.

We will continue to look out for opportunities for our officers to be attached to international organisations at all levels, including the UN agencies, because this allows us to understand what are the issues that are evolving at the international circles and how we can better prepare ourselves to integrate and work with these agencies in time to come.

Beyond organising ourselves differently and building new capabilities in our offices, we also need to partner differently.

As part of Forward SG, partnership is a key component of the refreshed social compact. Strong partnerships are anchored on trust. The Public Service has worked hard over generations to earn the trust of Singaporeans and is committed to a strong system of governance.

Ms He Ting Ru asked whether our regulations or practices need any updates to ensure that our governance frameworks are not compromised and Mr Louis Chua asked about making assets declarations public for Ministers. I think I have responded to these topics previously, extensively in past Parliamentary replies, but if I may, I will just reiterate a few things.

I think different countries have different rules for their people and organisations and as all of us will agree, no one rule is a panacea to prevent corruption or lobbying.

But what we need to do is to look at the system holistically. What we also need to do is to look at the outcome that we have achieved and ask ourselves what is the scale and magnitude of our problem. Putting in new and more rules does not necessarily solve the problems that we may not even have to start with. Whenever we put in new rules, we must also be careful if it causes any unintended consequences.

For example, I just checked the data that was quoted by some Members about some of the countries that have perhaps adopted some of those rules.

In the Corruption Perceptions Index, Singapore in the last five years has been ranked consistently between number three and number five. But those countries who supposedly have some of these more elaborate rules are actually ranked much lower. For example, the UK was ranked somewhere between 11 and 20.

So, I think when we look at how to make sure that we retain the trust of our people, we must look at it at a system level. If I may reiterate what I have said previously, this must occur at three levels.

First, we must make sure that we select good people with the right values to understand not just the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law and uphold them.

Second, we must work as a system, as a team, to make sure that we look out for one another, check one another's blind spots, help to prevent one another from falling into a situation where they might be compromised.

And third, we must have layers of checks internally and externally to pick up issues whenever there are problems.

That is how we have managed to keep our system relatively corruption-free, lobby-free all these years. But we will be the first to admit that no system is perfect and the situation is evolving and every time we put in rules, there will be parties out there that will try to go around our rules and we have to keep constantly evolving our own rules to make sure that we are never complacent.

In trying to copy other people's rules, we must see what they have been able to achieve versus what we have been able to achieve, what problems they have been able to solve versus what problems we are trying to solve. There is no magic answer to this.

And we should also have a care for the confidentiality of the information, the privacy concerns of the senior officers in the Public Service, including the political office holders. Why stop at the Ministers? Why not the Members of Parliament? Why stop at the Permanent Secs? Why not the Directors? I think for every rule that we put in, there are implications that we should consider carefully and ask ourselves whether the price that we pay is commensurate with the problem that we are trying to solve.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat also asked how the Government can partner citizens better. The formation of the Singapore Government Partnership Office (SGPO) signals our commitment to the next round of partnerships and engagements.

Beyond partnering on issues that are already on the national agenda, we will engage citizens to set the agenda. We are building from a position of strength. We have already established a clear track record of engagements and partnerships with the community from consulting to co-creating and co-delivering solutions.

For lower-income families and their children, we have moved beyond public consultations on Government proposals to proactively co-create and co-deliver solutions with the public. For example, under the Growing Together with KidSTART initiative, corporates and volunteers partnered KidSTART Singapore to co-create fun learning opportunities for KidSTART families and their children.

As part of the Singapore Green Plan 2030, the Green Action for Community (GAC) movement was launched in 2022 to involve the community in co-creating ground-up sustainability efforts.

We are also strengthening partnerships with the private sector. During COVID-19, many came forward to help and co-create solutions together with the government. We are doubling down on these new ways of working together. There are now about 15 active Alliances for Action (AFAs), covering a range of common interests.

We are also formalising our partnerships with corporates, such as the MOU with Singapore Airlines last month, to collaborate in areas such as training and volunteer management in essential support care roles in the healthcare sector and this will also allow the Public Service to search our capabilities in the contingencies, drawing upon some of the capacities in the private sector.

I thank Ms Denise Phua for her cut on the Public Service for Good Movement. I launched it in July last year to provide public officers with opportunities to actively partner citizens on a personal level. I am happy to share that in 2023, over 1,000 public officers signed up to volunteer their skills for meaningful causes such as being a community befriender for low-income families and mentoring ITE students.

Under the Public Service ITE Mentorship Programme, Higher NITEC students like Ryan and Ferris interned at GovTech for 20 weeks. GovTech officers Yeo Kian Chuan, Zorrel Chen and Supansa Tan noticed the interns' enthusiasm for learning and ensured ample opportunities for them to grow and eventually perform as Product Managers with the Public Service.

In 2024, we will expand the Public Service for Good Movement to include a wider range of social causes and initiatives.

This will include skills-based volunteering opportunities that empower our youths and families through mentorship, support seniors in ageing well, promote sustainability initiatives for a greener Singapore.

Having said that, I come back to where I started. Past success is no guarantee for future success. I have shared how we are going to evolve the way we operate, develop our capabilities and partner others for the future. This is an ongoing effort. We must look ahead and continue to plan ahead, even if it means disrupting ourselves. In fact, we rather disrupt ourselves before other people disrupt us, so that our Public Service can continue to transform and remain relevant to the future needs of Singapore, and it will be a Public Service where all Singaporeans can be proud of.

The Chairman: We are reaching the end of guillotine time. If there are any clarifications, I can probably allow one or two very short ones. Any clarifications for Minister Chan? Ms Lim.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Chairman, thank you. In the interest of time, just on the FIDReC's jurisdictdion.

The Chairman: Minister of State Tan, a short reply please.

Mr Alvin Tan: Sir, just quickly to Ms Sylvia Lim, just two things. One, the earlier question about the overarching consumer protection. First, we have the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) which deals with general enquiries, and FIDReC to deal with financial disputes. I think we just look at how other jurisdictions handle that and we have a framework and a process where it fits our jurisdiction.

5.15 pm

On FIDReC, the Member would have noted that FIDReC is currently consulting on the terms of reference, one of which is to raise the current adjudication award limit from $100,000 to $150,000. This consultation closes on, in fact, 29 February, this week. So, please feel free to submit any feedback on this.

The Chairman: Ms Poh Li San.

Ms Poh Li San: Chairman, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $619,177,000 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $61,955,200 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.