Debated in Parliament on 5 Mar 2026.
Head I, Ministry of Social and Family Development. Mr Xie Yao Quan.
Chairman, I move, "That the total sum allocated to Head I of the Estimates be reduced by $100."
Members on both sides of the House have spoken passionately in this House about social mobility in Singapore. So, there is no monopoly on compassion for the least amongst us and no monopoly on ideas to uplift them.
Social mobility is one centre of gravity in the Ministry of Social and Family Development's (MSF's) work. So, as Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) Chair, I thought to use this speech to contribute to the conversation. And here, I would like to declare that I am also working in a foundation focussed on social mobility.
But first, let us frame the challenge of social mobility in Singapore precisely. And let me start with this point.
Singapore has uplifted lower-income households significantly over the decades. There has been broad-based progress for all. In technical terms, Singapore has kept absolute social mobility very much alive. Each generation has, on the whole, including those in the lowest-income segment, been able to achieve much better life outcomes than the previous generation.
Yet, between households, higher-income households are accumulating advantages even more quickly than lower-income household. Therefore, within each generation, the starting points in life between children from higher- and lower-income families are moving further apart, and the opportunities gap throughout life between children from higher- and lower-income families is widening, resulting in larger inequalities in outcomes much later in life.
In technical terms, therefore, relative social mobility in Singapore is slowing even as we have kept absolute mobility very much alive. The Ministry of Finance's (MOF's) Occasional Papers, in both 2015 and 2025, bear this out. The key measure for relative mobility is the income distribution of children, in their 30s, born to fathers who were in the bottom 20% of earners, in their 40s. In other words, the starting condition for these children was, being born into the bottom 20% by income, and the measure is where these children ended up by income in their adult lives.
In an ideal world, 20% of these children would themselves end up in the top 20% of earners in their cohorts; 20% will end up being in the bottom 20% of earners – like their fathers, and so on. There would be an equal chance, basically, of moving up to the top, or anywhere in between, or remaining at the bottom, in an ideal world.
But the world is obviously not ideal. So, in Singapore,13.8% of those born into the bottom 20% in the 1985 to 1989 cohorts made it to the top 20% of earners while 25.3% ended up in the bottom 20% of earners, like their fathers. So, there is an over-representation. Compared to the 1978 to 1982 cohorts, in other words, those born just seven years earlier, the 1985 to 1989 cohorts have almost one full percentage point less that made it to the top 20% of earners, and one full percentage point more that ended up in the same bottom 20%, like their fathers.
So, relative social mobility in Singapore has been slowing even as we sustained broad-based progress for all. And the natural tendency will be for relative mobility to continue slowing, as it has in many other advanced economies.
I must point out, though, that we have been doing better than other advanced economies in relative mobility. In France, less than 10% of those born into the bottom 20% ended up in the top 20%. And even in a Nordic society like Denmark, the figure is at 11.7%. We are at 13.8%. So, we are not doing badly at all.
But Singapore has never been one to define our values and ideals solely on how we outperform other societies. We chart our own path, and we set our own values and ideals. I think we must continue to be a society where relative mobility is alive as much as possible, and indeed, strengthened if at all possible. Keep the measure as close to 20% as possible, and lean against the natural pressures of slowing relative mobility with time.
In concrete terms, this means pushing against the natural pressures of ever further starting points in life, and the pressures of an ever-widening opportunities gap that compounds through life for our children of today.
Our families at the bottom are not stuck – far from it – but we must help their children keep up with families at the top who are pulling away faster. Help children at the bottom keep up from the start of their lives, and through life. Or as Ms Sylvia Lim said in this House back in 2018, children impacted by their parents' circumstances must be "supported or facilitated to break out".
However, while we can look to the Government, with its policy levers, to secure broad-based progress for all, in other words, to deliver absolute mobility, it is quite a different story for relative mobility.
Keeping relative social mobility alive, essentially, containing that opportunities gap between your children and mine, almost by definition, cannot be left to the Government, or for that matter, the social sector, alone. It takes all of us. Those who have done well and can provide the most to their children must play an active role and become part of the solution, to create opportunities for those children who start off with less.
Indeed, well-known researchers, like Raj Chetty and Matt Jackson, are showing that in America at least. Children from low-income families have a better chance to become high-income as adults if they get opportunities to interact with peers from higher-income families. This likely holds true in Singapore, too. So, it takes all of us.
And indeed, as Teo You Yenn puts it in her book, "This is What Inequality Looks Like", inequality, in opportunities, through life, is not just the result of policies, but also how everyone, at the top and bottom and in between interact and choose to interact with these policies, interact with one another within a social context and do and do not do certain things.
So, again, it takes all of us. So, those who have done well must play an active role to create opportunities for those children who start off with much less. This is what a "we first" and mobile society in Singapore can look like. And I think becoming such a society and keeping relative mobility alive in this way, will be a defining challenge of our times.
So, what do we need to get there?
First, I think we need scientific knowledge and understanding. Ms Sylvia Lim, in the same speech in 2018, called for longitudinal studies that will, "track the fate of families (at the bottom) over time" and indeed, go "beyond numbers to dig deep into the daily lives and evaluate the reasons why they do not seem to be able to catch up with the rest of society."
MOF's Occasional Papers in 2015 and 2025 do provide a longitudinal view on how families at the bottom are doing. They are a very good start. But I agree with Ms Lim and today, I want to build on her call.
To really help us in our work to close the opportunities gap throughout life and keep relative social mobility alive in Singapore, I think we need longitudinal research in Singapore that goes beyond descriptive correlations amongst group averages, to mechanisms that elucidate what actually drives social mobility, at the individual level and models that can predict and simulate how social mobility might change with certain shifts to the drivers of mobility, again at the individual level.
In very technical and academic terms, we can use theoretical networking games and micro-founded structural approaches that overcome the reflection problem arising in reduced-form peer effects analysis in econometrics to achieve this.
But in simple terms, we should be aiming for models that show how individuals make decisions and assume certain trajectories in life based on intrinsic factors, extrinsic factors and the influence of peers on one another. And all this is possible only if we have the right dataset. So, we must start with data, the right type of data, collected to the right fidelity.
We need data on the social networks of Singaporeans at the bottom. We need data on cognitive and behavioural traits, on their participation in the economy, not only in the formal sector, but also, and perhaps especially, in the informal sector. We need data on participation in credit facilities. Again, both formal and informal and we will need such data over a long period of time.
To my knowledge, there is no such dataset in Singapore perhaps precisely because it is very challenging to collect such data, to high fidelity. It requires extensive and deep fieldwork, over a long period of time and first, building strong relationships of trust. It requires adherence to high ethical standards, including privacy standards, that will do no harm to the vulnerable that we are seeking to understand and ultimately uplift. And all these mean it will require considerable and sustained funding.
And by the way, such a dataset goes well beyond administrative data. Administrative data is still critical. But the kind of research being contemplated will need much more than administrative data. I urge the Government to consider constructing such a dataset, investing in such a longitudinal dataset, with a view to enabling models that will truly transform our understanding of what drives social mobility, what interventions targeting what drivers may work and work to what extent.
But even with such research, by definition, we will only truly know the outcomes of what we do today 35 to 40 years later. Social mobility is that longitudinal by its very nature. Put another way, we cannot wait for longitudinal research to conclude, to tell us what we should we do now, to close the opportunities gap for our children of today. Deciding what to do now to close that opportunities gap will thus be as much art as it is science.
We will need to look to whatever evidence base is available and apply judgement, consider ideas thoroughly, try to do no harm if at all possible, but act now. And then, in 35 to 40 years down the road, we will truly find out how we have done.
But so, what do we need to do now, systemically, to close the opportunities gap from the start of life and through life? Let me suggest three key principles.
First, there is no "magic bullet" solution. Instead, we need a system of interlocking solutions, across multiple domains – academic, non-academic, social capital formation, financial stability, housing, health – each solution working alongside the others, to collectively close the opportunities gap.
Second, we need good solutions at scale, more than excellent pilots that remain as pilots. The harder work – the hardest work – is often in scaling and sustaining at scale. And it is this harder work that we need to do, to have a chance to meaningfully close the opportunities gap.
And third, we need solutions throughout life, not just at any one life stage, but across various life stages, to overcome the opportunities gap that compounds through life. Early life matters and we must intervene heavily in the early years, but we cannot stop there. We need interventions beyond, well into adulthood, to close the opportunities gap throughout life.
So, on that note, I urge community partners, funders and citizens to all come together to create interventions across domains, add scale and through life to close the opportunities gap for our children. And the Government can play a leadership role here to signpost, coordinate, support, resource and galvanise.
Question proposed.
Sir, there is a gap in how we administer Lasting Power of Attorneys (LPAs) and deputyship under the Mental Capacity Act. The professional donee framework is too limited, relying too much on named individuals. Section 12(1)(b) requires personal welfare donees be individuals. Organisations are allowed only for property and affairs.
The Office of Public Guardian's (OPG's) own list of registered professional deputies illustrates the consequence. Six social workers and one accountant from TOUCH Community Services are listed individually: same address at Bukit Merah Central, same email, same phone number. They function as an organisation, but the law forces the appointment to be personal. When that social worker leaves, the donor must pay to appoint a replacement. In deputyship cases, the cost comes from the incapacitated person's own assets. It seems wrong to make the donor pay for a gap in the law.
There is also a practical issue with personal appointments. LPAs are made years or decades before activation, meaning individual donees may have retired, emigrated or died. There is considerable uncertainty whether donees appointed years ago can take up the appointment.
Australia's states have addressed this through Public Guardian offices, providing continuity for personal welfare decisions, regardless of staff changes. They charge modest fees and provide the option of being donees of last resort.
I ask, will MSF consider amending section 12 to allow accredited organisations to serve as personal welfare donees? Beyond that, could Singapore's Public Guardian serve as donee of last resort, as Australian states have done? Will OPG also issue guidance on what happens when a professional donee falls off the register? And will OPG consider prescribed fee guidelines for professional donee services, given this is a fiduciary service for the most vulnerable and not a competitive market?
Sir, as of January this year, there were 410,000 LPAs registered by the Ministry. Momentum has built up as the benefits of making LPAs become more widely understood.
My purpose today is to highlight two groups of people who may not be benefiting from the LPA regime for different reasons. They are first, those without any relative or friend to appoint; and secondly, our low-wage foreign workers.
First, those without any relative or friend to appoint. My Party colleague Kenneth Tiong has elaborated on why the current LPA regime is not adequate in requiring named individuals and not organisations to take on professional doneeship to manage one's personal welfare. I agree with him that we should consider enabling a donor to appoint the public guardian or the public trustee as donee, as we see in jurisdictions, such as Australia. Such an option will assist those donors as the appointment will withstand the passage of time.
The second group who currently have difficulties with LPAs are foreign workers in Singapore under work permits. Though they are relatively young, some of them work under conditions where the risk of serious injury, including mental incapacity, is ever present. Examples include those in physically demanding industries, such as the construction and marine sectors. These migrant workers do not have next-of-kin in Singapore, and their friends may not be conversant with navigating Singapore's systems and services. Should they suddenly lose mental capacity, they would benefit if a donee could assist them to make decisions about their personal welfare or manage their funds, for example, to send money back to their loved ones at home.
Sir, it is heartening to know that Singaporeans are on standby to help. These include volunteers who care deeply about migrant worker welfare and wish to contribute. There are also lawyers who are willing to issue LPAs without charge or take on the role of a volunteer donee if needed.
However, the issue the workers face is the high cost of registration of LPAs for foreigners. The registration fee for non-citizens and non-permanent residents is currently fixed at $230. For our low-wage migrant workers, this fee is prohibitive, accounting for a significant portion of their monthly salary. To them, it is simply unaffordable. The public guardian should not have a blanket registration fee for all foreigners, which applies to our high-wage employment pass (EP) holders and low-wage foreign work permit holders alike.
Our low-wage foreign workers work under tough physical conditions, and we rely on them to do much of the work that Singaporeans are not inclined to do. The least we can do is to make it practical for them to make their LPAs, either without charge or at a nominal fee. Such a gesture would go a long way to showing that we really care.
Mr Chairman, MSF has consistently emphasised the importance of strong families and I support that objective. However, when we speak about "strong families", we must ask: what families are we speaking about and are our policies fully aligned with the lived realities of Singaporean households today?
Let me begin with single-parent families.
Single parents face a distinct and compounding set of pressures – financial strain, time scarcity, caregiving burden, housing constraints and, in some cases, social stigma. Unlike dual-income households, single parents must shoulder both breadwinning and caregiving responsibilities without internal household support.
While MSF provides assistance schemes, much of the framework remains largely designed around a dual-family baseline. Single parents often qualify for support only after meeting strict income thresholds and many fall into a financially squeezed middle, earning too much for sustained assistance, yet too little to comfortably manage rising costs.
These are parents who work full-time, care for their children alone and yet live one unexpected bill away from financial instability.
I therefore ask the Minister. Does MSF track long-term economic mobility outcomes specifically for single-parent households? Are there plans to recalibrate housing, childcare and work-support schemes to better reflect the time and income constraints unique to single parents? Has the Ministry conducted a comprehensive review of whether current family policies inadvertently assume a nuclear, dual-parent model?
Mr Chairman, this leads to a broader question. Much of MSF's effort to encourage strong families appears centred on public education campaigns promoting marriage, parenting and shared norms. While public messaging has its place, many families today are not struggling because of a lack of awareness. They are struggling because of cumulative pressures – cost of living, housing affordability, expensive childcare, enrichment expectations and long working hours.
At the national level, we rightly prioritise workforce development and economic competitiveness. But do our family policies receive the same systemic priority? Or have we unintentionally reduced family stability to a messaging exercise rather than treating it as an economic and cross-ministerial design issue?
Is the traditional nuclear family still the dominant policy reference point? And if so, does that sufficiently reflect current realities, including single-parent households, blended families, delayed marriages and dual-career pressures?
I would therefore like the Minister to clarify whether MSF intends to undertake a broader review of family policy design assumptions; whether outcome metrics for "family strength" go beyond programme uptake to measure stability, financial resilience and child well-being across diverse household types; and whether inter-Ministry coordination, particularly with the Ministry of Manpower, Ministry of National Development and Ministry of Education, is being strengthened to address root pressures embedded in our housing, labour and education systems, rather than relying primarily on awareness campaigns.
Mr Chairman, this policy cut is not intended to diminish support for families. Rather, it signals the need to reassess whether our frameworks have kept pace with social change. If we are serious about building strong families, then our policies must be designed not around idealised models but around the realities Singaporean households actually live with today.
Mr Chairman, families in Singapore face considerable pressures in our fast-paced and competitive society. Many must manage the cost of housing, education, healthcare and daily living. For lower-income households, these demands can be especially heavy. At the same time, long working hours in pursuit of job security and career progression often reduce the time parents spend with their children, placing strain on family relationships.
Strong and resilient families, therefore, require sustained support. The Strengthening Families programme plays an important role through counselling, parenting workshops and family bonding activities. As family needs grow more complex, how does MSF intend to further enhance and scale up the programme to better support families facing multiple stresses?
Mr Chairman, I would also like to raise a related issue. Overseas research has observed inter-generational patterns of children being born out of wedlock, often influenced by socio-economic factors. We should be mindful to prevent such cycles from taking root in Singapore.
While upholding the importance of marriage and stable families, we must also ensure that children are not disadvantaged by their circumstances of birth.
Currently, unwed parents do not receive the Baby Bonus cash gift, and they are not eligible for tax benefits, such as the Working Mother's Child Relief and the Parenthood Tax Rebate. These differences can have a real impact, especially for lower-income single parent households. Can MSF review how we can better support unwed parents in meeting their children's needs and whether more local research can be conducted to better understand and prevent potential intergenerational cycles?
Sir, Ms Loy Wee Mee runs Pre-School By-The-Park in my ward. The Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) awarded her centre's Make*Believe programme the Innovation Award in 2023. The National Institute of Early Childhood Development (NIEC) featured her as the expert voice on play-based learning.
In January this year, her Li Hwan centre announced closure; 52 parents rallied to save it. Two of them, Nicole and Jasmine, believed enough in the school to take it over themselves. We wish them the best. But the structural challenge remains – full-day fees are $1,655 a month, with no Government funding. The Partner Operator (POP) centre nearby charges $650. That is a $1,000 gap. Passion alone cannot close it.
Sir, this gap is not market created. It is policy created. When Government subsidy prices 80% of the market at $610 to $650, that becomes what preschools should cost. Parents are not choosing Anchor Operator (AOP) pedagogy over play-based learning. They are choosing to pay AOP prices. At a $1,000 differential, there is no real choice.
The squeeze hits labour too. AOP and POP salary targets funded by subsidy becomes a sector-wide wage benchmark. Independents must match or lose teachers, not to better pedagogy but to better subsidised pay. Every time salary targets rise, independents' costs rise with them, but revenue does not. The 20% is expected to innovate, but with what?
The differential treatment extends beyond fees. I thank ECDA for extending the Manpower Hiring Grant to independents this January. But it took two years.
From 2024 to 2026, only AOPs and POPs had subsidised talent development. Independents competed for the same shrinking pool of educators at full cost. This is the same regulator funding one team's player development budget and asking the other why they cannot keep up.
The end state – two tiers and nothing in between. Mass market, Government preschools on one side; ultra-premium international schools on the other. The mid-tier, wherein Montessori, Reggio, play-based and inclusive programmes for children with diverse needs actually live, is collapsing. Middle-class families lose meaningful choice.
Progress is when what was once a boutique pedagogy becomes the base we build for the next generation.
Malaysia is doing this. In December 2025, its government revamped the national preschool curriculum to prioritise play-based, child-centred learning. In April, Kuala Lumpur hosts the World Forum on Early Care and Education, with 500 participants from over 40 countries. Malaysian educators invite Singaporean operators to speak at their forums on play- and project-based learning. They plan study tours here. Their government is actively driving these reforms.
Our neighbours are investing in what our funding model makes unviable. If they are right about early childhood, and I believe they are, a pedagogy gap will open across the Causeway, as we drive out the very educators they want to learn from.
I have two asks. First, fund the child, not the school. If the subsidy follows a child to any licensed, quality-assured centre, parents, all parents, can choose the pedagogy the Government's own agencies say works. When the gap is $80, parents can weigh the differences.
Second, operator-independent teacher funding. If a teacher is L2 certified, why should their salary support depend on which operator employs them?
The expertise is here. Our own agency agrees the pedagogy works. What is missing is a funding structure that lets parents act on the agreement. I ask that we let parents choose.
Mr Chairman, accessible, affordable and quality preschools are fundamental to giving every child a strong start in life.
First, accessibility means ensuring that preschool places are available and conveniently located across our neighbourhoods, so families can enrol their children without undue difficulty. Second, affordability ensures that families from all income levels can assess early childhood education without financial strain. And third, quality remains critical. A nurturing and stimulating environment supported by well-trained educators, age-appropriate curricula and safe facilities enables children's holistic development.
A strong core of early childhood educators lays the foundation for our children's cognitive, social, emotional and physical growth, preparing them well for primary school and beyond.
Sir, can the Ministry therefore provide an update on the progress made in strengthening the accessibility, affordability and quality of our preschool sector?
At the same time, our early childhood educators are taking on increasing responsibilities. With smaller families and rising parental expectations, educators are expected to do more than ever before. This is further compounded by manpower challenges and the time required to fill vacancies. In this regard, can MSF consider expanding the roles and capabilities of learning support educators beyond special needs support, so that they can help augment and relieve pressures on our stretched early childhood workforce.
Sir, my generation is simultaneously asked to have more children and to support our ageing parents so they can age-in-place. Often at the same time and often with the same leave pool.
In my maiden speech, I said that caregiving is work and we can and should do more to support our caregivers. Today, childcare and extended childcare leave remains the only legislated form of ongoing paid caregiving leave. Each parent receives two to six days a year, regardless of how many children they have. Yet we know that caregiving demands multiply with each child and does not divide neatly between siblings. Our leave framework should reflect this reality.
The Workers' Party recommends extending childcare leave on a per child basis up to age 12. We also propose establishing paid family care leave for Singaporeans with primary caregiving responsibilities for elderly parents or family members with severe disabilities.
There is the tripartite standard on unpaid caregiving leave but it is voluntary, only covers hospitalisation events and has only been adopted by a relatively small fraction of employers. It also encourages employees to first use their paid annual leave. So, we are back to the same challenge which I raised in my maiden speech – caregivers burning annual leave time meant for their own rest with no income protection.
Singaporeans should not have to choose between caring for their loved ones and taking care of themselves. I call on MSF to seriously consider these recommendations.
Sir, there are annually around 400 adoption applications in Singapore. Adoptions should be encouraged, not just for the wholehearted act of love that it embodies but also to mitigate our dismal total fertility rate.
It is thus very concerning to receive news of investigations by Indonesia into an alleged baby trafficking ring supplying babies to Singapore for adoption. This raises questions about regional efforts to curb child trafficking.
In November 2025, Workers' Party Non-constituency Member Andre Low filed a Parliamentary Question about regional cooperation among the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries to protect against child trafficking in inter-country adoptions. In answer, MSF Minister Masagos mentioned the ASEAN Regional Plan of Action on the Elimination of Violence against Children from 2016 to 2025. Domestically, he highlighted that child trafficking was criminalised under the Adoption of Children Act.
He further stressed the robustness of the adoption process, which included the verification of the child's identity papers, travel documents and conducting checks with birth parents to ensure they had given valid consent and had not offered the child for adoption for improper financial or material gain.
In 2022, MSF tabled the Adoption of Children Bill to introduce a specific regulatory framework governing adoption. The framework includes a requirement for adoptive parents to disclose to the Court the payments they have made to the birth parents and others in the process, and to seek the Court sanctions for these payments. It would also be an offence to obtain the birth parents' consent by fraud, duress or undue influence. The question is, when it comes to children's source from overseas, how effective are these provisions?
Finally, the ongoing Indonesian investigations have led to delays in adoptive parents applying for Singapore Citizenship for their children. In the meantime, adoptive parents would have to pay higher childcare-related expenses without a clear endpoint, which has been straining and demoralising. I would like to repeat my call to MSF to extend citizen rates to those children, especially when both parents are Singaporeans.
Mr Chairman, I would like to state that I am a foster parent registered with MSF. I have three foster kids with me, including one toddler.
Sir, there is a real shortage of foster parents. There are about 500 plus children under fostering and the 500 plus under institutions, which is really not a good place to be. But there are about 600 plus foster parents. So, I think we should put more effort into generating awareness among the communities, working with the fostering agency, such as Boys' Towns, Gracehaven, Muhammadiyah Association and PPIS Home for Good.
The other thing is the foster parents; that they are "on" 24/7. It is not "foster parents". It is really the "foster families". So, they really have to look after the kids, stabilise them and nurture them.
But there are really issues on the information access for the foster kids. They cannot access the school portal and they cannot book online medical. Those are the issues that the Ministry might want to consider doing a design-thinking project. Go through the full journey for the foster parents and the foster kids, and see where are the pain points. Give them the full access since the kids are the primary persons whom we are looking after.
The other thing is a much more holistic way of looking at fostering. I think currently is the trial systems, where you have the biological parents, the foster parents. They do not really talk to each other and then you have the case workers serving as "in-betweens". It has its positive and there is the reason for it being so – so they do not sort of interact too much or have conflicts with each other.
However, I think we can explore much more intensive co-parenting, in situations that are possible, to bring both foster parents and the biological parents together, with the kids as the centre of our attention. The whole idea for us as foster parents, is to stabilise the kid, gain trust, build bonds and then interact or integrate them back with the biological parents. That is our mission and we want to make sure that the bonds continue, rather than disrupted halfway.
Chairman, I rise to speak on divorcing couples. But let me start with a quick clarification. I am married; happily married. But I am speaking about divorce today because in Singapore has been going on an upward trend.
In particular I wish to address the support that MSF provides to help parents transition from being spouses to being co-parents. Divorce is not merely the end of a marriage. For many families, it is the beginning of a long co-parenting journey and the people who pay the highest price when that journey is poorly managed are the children.
In that regard, I support the policy intent behind the mandatory co-parenting programmes for divorcing couples with children below 21 years old. The structure is good, it is sound. The online e-learning component to set a baseline understanding, followed by a physical counselling session to discuss practical co-parenting arrangements after divorce is good. It rightly treats co-parenting as a public good. But if we accept that, then the support must be timely, accessible and directed to the parents who need it most.
Chairman, I make two observations on how MSF can improve this in a practical way. I was informed that the physical counselling session take weeks to book, with longer waits during festive periods and at more heavily subscribed Family Service Centre locations. I urge MSF to strengthen delivery of the programme in three ways. First, increase counsellor capacity and appointment slots, including weekends and weekdays. Second, expand the schemes to more locations, which includes increasing Family Service Centre capacity where demand is persistently high. Third, use video sessions in suitable cases so physical capacity constraints do not become a bottleneck.
Next, Chairman, if the programme's purpose is to protect children by improving co-parenting readiness, there appears to be a gap in who is required to attend.
Currently, only parents initiating or consenting to divorce are required to attend. However, parents contesting the divorce or related matters, who may be the one who need it most, are exempted. If such a parent is outside the programme, the intervention reaches only one side of the co-parenting, which undermines the policy purpose. I therefore urge MSF to consider applying the programme more equally to all parents undergoing divorce with children under 21 years old.
Chairman, this connects to a second issue that often arises in higher-conflict divorces and it is one that is particularly acute during festive periods when children's access and family time become more emotionally charged. During this Lunar New Year period, many families are reuniting and celebrating, but for some parents it is the toughest time of the year because their child has been unilaterally taken away or withheld by the other parent without any Court Order, contact is cut off and they are simply told to "go to Court".
The cruelty is that legal processes take time and in these cases time matters most, because the first days and weeks of separation can disrupt the child's routines, allow untrue narratives to take hold and erode the child's bond with the left-behind parent. In other words: Justice Delayed is Justice Denied.
While international child abduction triggers urgent return mechanisms under the Hague Convention, domestic removals within Singapore do not have an equivalent rapid response track, leaving left-behind parents to wait for months whilst their applications are being resolved in Court. Yet for the child, the harm caused by sudden separation can be just as real and just as lasting.
I therefore urge that we treat domestic child abduction as a time-critical child welfare issue by tracking and publishing core indicators and by creating an expedited judicial pathway with early neutral review, swift restoration of safe interim contact where appropriate, proportionate deterrence against bad-faith conduct by one parent and all-round operational support for parents, so that we protect genuine safety cases while preventing abuse of a "remove first, explain later" tactic and safeguarding children's best interests.
So, I ask MSF: what more can be done, together with the wider family justice system, to ensure that children are not left to bear the consequences of time delays in high-conflict cases where contact is abruptly cut off?
Chairman, these are practical refinements to existing problems, but they go to the heart of what MSF stands for. Strong families are not only built before a crisis, they are also protected through a crisis. I hope the Ministry will consider these improvements so that the system achieves what it is meant to achieve: better co-parenting, less conflict and better outcomes for children.
Chairman, the misuse of AI, particularly through sexually exploitative deepfake content, is creating new risks. Children and vulnerable persons, including persons with disabilities, may face impersonation, coercion and greater difficulty reporting harm.
May I ask the Minister: What safeguards are in place to protect families, especially children and vulnerable persons, from harmful uses of AI? How is MSF working with other Government agencies to strengthen digital literacy among parents and caregivers? Are there specialised support services for victims of AI-enabled exploitation, particularly children and persons with disabilities?
Mr Chairman, the call to build a "we first" society reminds us that growth must uplift every family and that care cannot be left to individuals alone.
A society that puts "we first", must recognise caregiving as real work – whether it is a single parent balancing work and childcare, families raising children with special needs who juggle between therapy appointments and education, or mid-career workers caring for elderly parents while trying to remain economically active.
Caregivers embody this spirit every day. They shoulder responsibilities not just for themselves, but for their families and loved ones, often while continuing to work and contribute to society.
For many caregivers, the challenge is not only financial support, but having the confidence that help will be there in a timely and predictable way, as care needs evolve unpredictably over time.
With that, it also brings us as a "we first" society. We must also care for those who serve others. Social service professionals and MSF officers operate in a high-touch, emotionally demanding environment, often under manpower constraints.
As the Ministry advances digitalisation and service transformation, how is it ensuring caseload sustainability, safeguarding officers' career development and upskilling, mental wellbeing and mitigating risks of burnout, so that the social services sector remains a rewarding and sustainable career for officers?
If we truly believe in "we first", then caregivers and the officers who walk alongside them, must feel that the system stands firmly with them.
Mr Chairman, some lower-income families face layered and persistent challenges that cannot be resolved quickly even with well designed incentives. They may be coping with unstable employment, caregiving responsibilities, debt, housing constraints, or children with additional developmental needs. These challenges often interact and compound one another, even when families are making sincere efforts, attending coaching, enrolling in programmes, seeking employment or upgrading skills. Progress can be gradual and uneven.
Milestones, such as clearing debt, sustaining employment, or ensuring consistent preschool attendance take time, especially when setbacks occur. In such circumstances, achievement-based progress package, though well intention may feel distant and difficult to attain. When goals seem too ambitious, families may feel discouraged despite genuine effort. This can dampen motivation and affect take up, particularly among those who already find the journey daunting.
I therefore welcome this year's enhancements to Comlink+, including new payouts, smaller, but more achievable milestones and cash incentives. Recognising incremental progress and celebrating step by step gains will better support families on a realistic and dignified path towards stability and upward mobility.
How does MSF plan to strengthen the Comlink+ ecosystem, including both employers and community partners, to better recruit, support and retain beneficiaries in sustained employment?
Mr Cai Yinzhou, you can take your two cuts together.
Thank you, Chairman. My both cuts will address guardrails for protecting our children in low-income families.
In the book "Alone together", author Turkle examines the increasing reliance on digital devices and social media and the paradox of being alone, together. Feeling both connected and disconnected in an increasingly digital world. Apart from loneliness, academic studies show how technology addition leads to anxiety, depression and even aggression and attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorder symptoms.
While the Government has banned smartphone use in secondary schools, excessive screen time outside school hours remains a challenge, especially for children from lower-income families.
In my house visits to rental blocks, I often see parents occupying children and even infants, with screens – smartphones, tablets and TVs. Parents have shared with me their challenges of being busy at work, health or caregiving responsibilities. Therefore, children are often left to their own devices – literally. In this case, the ones occupied with digital screens are unsupervised and without parental restriction guardrails.
It is crucial that whilst we push nationwide for a reduction of our children's exposure to screens in schools and age appropriate content, our home environments are not left behind.
I would like to ask the Ministry how it specifically considers the needs and context of lower-income families and work with other agencies to provide additional support when developing screen time policies in school, after school and at home.
Mr Chairman, while Budget 2026 rightly strengthens support for ComLink+ families, the effectiveness of this support relies entirely on successful engagement. In my interactions with families, I have observed recurring challengea: families who remain uncooperative or deeply disengaged. This is often driven by the exhaustion of juggling multiple commitments, personal crisis or a lack of trust in the cobbling system.
This lack of engagement creates a critical blind spot. It makes it difficult for family coaches to assess genuine needs, maintain continuity of care, or escalate cases where serious concerns, such as family violence or child safety may be involved. When engagement is inconsistent, the human touch and the trust built by a dedicated coach are easily lost.
We must recognise that unresponsiveness itself is often a signal of deeper and more complex challenges. We cannot allow these families, especially their children, to fall through the cracks.
I have two clarifications on this front.
First, what specific protocols for engaging within the ComLink+ Alliance Working Group and its partner agencies to re-engage families who have become unresponsive?
Second, would the Ministry consider a formal escalation pathway for such cases to Family Service Centres for deeper social work intervention when initial coaching efforts fail to gain traction? Ensuring the safety and well-being of the children in these households must remain our absolute priority.
Earlier this term, I spoke of the need for joined-up longitudinal pathways in education, health and careers that follow a family across life's transitions, so that no one is left to fall through the cracks. Budget 2026 takes a meaningful step in this direction through the enhanced ComLink+ framework.
ComLink+ is not just short-term relief. It is a mobility platform. Its strength lies in its progression engine. When support is integrated, milestones are clear and progress is sustained, families do not only cope, they move forward.
I welcome the enhancements in Budget 2026 – higher cash payouts tied to stable employment and preschool attendance, intermediate milestones, higher caps and the new $500 quarterly Partnership Payout. These strengthen the incentive structure.
But if ComLink+ is to become the architecture of modern social mobility, five shifts matter.
First, integration must be structural, not best effort. A family may juggle a family coach, a healthcare team, an employment officer and a school representative. That is a lot of people. Could we move towards one shared progression plan across agencies – one dashboard, one set of goals, one coordinated journey? I ask the Minister if MSF is moving in this direction, so families experience genuine integrated support rather than parallel case files?
Second, design for fragility. Progress is rarely linear. A contact job ends. A grandparent falls ill. A small shock can reverse months of work. We must recognise momentum, not just milestones. As ComLink+ scales, how will MSF ensure temporary setbacks beyond a family's control do not permanently disqualify them from progression payouts?
Third, scale must not dilute trust. Trust is the foundation of transformation. One trusted person who knows their story, who checks in, who believes in them when they do not believe in themselves can make all the difference. As we scale, how do we protect that relational core as numbers grow?
Fourth, measure transformation, not transactions – not just payouts issued, but job retained, sustained preschool attendance, debt reduced, stress stabilised. Do coaches have the capacity and tools to anchor this deeper work?
Fifth, mobility must include future readiness. With AI reshaping our economy, digital literacy, AI familiarity and tech-enabled income pathways must be part of progression goals. If we do not equip families for the economy of tomorrow, we risk stabilising them for yesterday.
If we get this right, ComLink+ do more than support families in difficulty. It will restore belief. And in a society facing inequality and technological disruption, belief may be our most precious asset. Let us design ComLink+ not only as a ladder out of hardship, but as a national statement that in Singapore, mobility is never accidental.
Mr Chairman, I thank the Government for appointing the Taskforce on Assurance for Families with Persons with Disabilities (PwDs), chaired by Minister of State Goh Pei Ming.
This task force is timely. Singapore already has a strong national roadmap in the Enabling Masterplan 2030. But there are pressing key concerns of families, particularly about adult life after school. The task force cannot give assurance to these families without addressing these key concerns.
Let me focus on four persistent gaps that the task force should address decisively.
One, on funding reform. Mr Chairman, disability spending today is front-loaded towards childhood while adult services operate under very tight margins even though adulthood can last 60 years or more. We therefore need funding reforms based on a lifespan approach.
One way forward is a two-tier structure. Let us start with the obvious Day Activity Centres (DAC) and residential home models for adults with moderate to high support needs.
First, provide a universal base funding component for every client served by a DAC or residential home. This base amount should be calculated using a realistic norm cost of care, reflecting staffing ratios, programme costs and operational realities. Second, on top of this base, apply a means-tested subsidies to ensure affordability for families who need them.
Service providers, such as the social service agencies, are not naive. If every additional client requires more fundraising, the system becomes unsustainable. Eventually, service providers will withdraw and the Government may have to operate these services directly, which could cost even more.
Funding reform must therefore align care complexity, workforce reality and sustainability.
Gap two, disability employment resilience in an AI economy.
Sir, many traditional entry-level roles for persons with disabilities in both blue- and white-collared jobs, such as packing, sorting, basic administrative work and even coding, are replaced by AI-driven automation. If we do nothing, then inclusive hire gains that have been made in our last decade will reverse. We must therefore shift from protecting old jobs to designing new work.
The task force should consider a national disability job redesign fund to support the identification of jobs at risk, surface new jobs in the new economy, redesign workflows to allow PwDs who can contribute and strengthen job-coach capability. Failure to do so intentionally and effectively risks reversing the years of good work that SG Enable, disability partners and inclusive employers had already put in.
Gap three, life planning and post-parental assurance.
The most common question families ask is this – what happens when parents lose capacity or die? We therefore should institutionalise life planning and continuity protocols and encourage families to be part of the solution instead of worrying. Planning should be supported, subsidised and normalised. When death or incapacity occurs, the system must respond with speed, coordination and stability.
For families with higher needs, introduce a family life navigator model, similar to the family coach approach in ComLink+.
Just as ComLink+ supports vulnerable families with a dedicated guide across life transitions, a life navigator could help disability families plan school-to-work transitions, housing options, caregiver ageing and long-term care arrangements.
A resilient system empowers and supports families to act early instead of relying solely on the Government.
Lastly, on a thoughtful convergence with mainstream elderly services.
Sir, as Singapore ages, disability and ageing will increasingly overlap. The line between disability services and elder care services will blur. Many adults with disabilities face similar challenges as seniors in varying degrees, but at a younger age.
Singapore has built strong community infrastructure for ageing – Active Ageing Centres, Community Care Apartments, home- and community-based care services, even Silver Generation Ambassadors and Healthier SG. If we design a support architecture that connects disability and ageing systems more intelligently and thoughtfully, we reduce duplication, improve outreach and enhance social compact. This is the assurance that families are asking for and the post-school cliff we must level.
Sir, let us be visionary and bold. I wish the task force all its very best.
Twenty-one years ago, I was blessed with my youngest child. My son has autism and is non-verbal. Being his mum has been a joy, but it is also the biggest challenge in my life.
In the short time I have been a Nominated Member of Parliament, I have had the opportunity to learn more about the Ministry's plans to support families navigating the complex journey of raising and caring for loved ones with special needs. I am grateful for the assurances that this is an area of priority and a key aspect of our plan to become a more inclusive society.
I know that the Government's heart is in the right place, but the key in ensuring that we actually deliver on the stated mission of becoming a more inclusive society is in how we execute our plans. For this, we must listen to the families we seek to serve. Which is why I am going to share my perspective as a parent and a caregiver.
One, we must provide a stable and secure care environment.
If you care for someone with special needs, you will know how long it can take to get them acclimatised to a new environment. This is why the transition periods are the hardest.
All we want is for them to adjust to a school, vocational institute or DAC that can support their needs as soon as possible. Waiting months or years for placement is not just a logistical delay, it results in regression in skills, desocialisation and isolation, and shifts the full burden of care back onto families, often leading to chronic stress, physical exhaustion and even anxiety and depression among caregivers.
Upheaval and change is especially traumatic for this vulnerable group. The shortage of places for those graduating from special education (SPED) has been a problem for years.
Imagine an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) child who has adjusted to the routine of school graduates only to find that there is no ready place for him or her to go to. It would be unthinkable if this happened to our normal school-going students, and yet we expect families with special needs children to wait when we know that the need for predictable schedules is especially important in this group.
We will soon be adding another 3,000 SPED school places by 2030. We would not be doing so if the demand was not there. So, while it has been announced that another 500 DAC places will be available by 2030, I firmly believe that this will not even come close to fulfilling the actual demand. It seems like we are perpetually trying to play catch up to a gap in services that is only getting wider.
We can and must do better. We need an aggressive expansion of facilities and a commitment to eliminate waiting times altogether. Those who graduate from SPED schools should have ready and available placement options for them to ensure a seamless transition. For this to happen, we need a lot more funding to DAC providers who have to meet the high costs of delivering such services so that they are able to confidently expand their offerings, recruit more trained staff and maintain high-quality care.
Two, we must make such care affordable to those who need it.
The high cost of DAC fees may be resulting in under-representation of the actual demand. For DACs who cater to those with high support needs, even with present means-tested subsidies, the current fees would still be unaffordable to many in the sandwiched class.
This must be reviewed. There is nothing more painful or emasculating to a parent than knowing that they cannot afford to get their child more help or they have to sacrifice the needs of their other children to meet the expenses of the special needs child.
Three, we need to give parents the peace of mind that there is a long-term plan for the continued learning and enhanced meaningful engagement of their special needs adult children. The biggest fear of parents is, who is going to look after my child when I am gone? We need to support the entire family unit, including siblings and extended family members so that they feel ready to shoulder the responsibility of continuing care. In this respect, I support Ms Denise Phua's suggestions.
The true measure of our society is in how we treat our most vulnerable and those who care for them. We must commit to a future where no family is left to struggle in the shadows of a waitlist. By providing prompt, guaranteed access to vital services, we are not just helping individual families, we strengthen the very fabric of our community.
Mr Chairman, I declare my interests in this area as the past president of Rainbow Centre Singapore, a social service agency serving persons with disabilities, and as a researcher examining the life course of persons with neurodevelopmental disabilities.
In a study I conducted about two decades ago, examining the futures of persons with autism in Singapore, what must have been the most difficult question I asked parents was – and that was raised just earlier – what are the plans for your child when you are no longer able to care for him or her?
Most parents shared their worries and concerns. Some parents described plans, often involving siblings or relatives. For others, the response was silence and many conversations were accompanied by tears.
In a related work, parents of persons with disabilities consistently ranked outcomes linked to safety, stability and personal satisfaction as their top priorities for their child. Yet many remained uncertain about how those outcomes will be attained.
There is now greater urgency for three reasons.
First, persons with disabilities are living significantly longer due to advances in medical care. For example, a local report by the Community Health Outreach for Wellness (CHoW) in 2024 indicates that individuals with Down syndrome now have a life expectancy of about 60 years.
Second, while caregivers are living longer, the gap between lifespan and healthspan means that many parents anticipate a period where they may still be alive, yet no longer physically or cognitively able to provide the sustained care.
Second, while caregivers are living longer, the gap between lifespan and health span means that many parents anticipate a period where they may still be alive, yet no longer physically or cognitively able to provide the sustained care.
Third, families are smaller. This means fewer siblings and extended kin available to assume long-term caregiving responsibilities.
Taken together, these trends suggest that families of PwDs can no longer, as in the past, rely primarily on informal family support. Future support therefore needs to be anticipated, structured and supported.
Sir, during the Budget debate, I introduced four questions as a lens for considering how initiatives strengthen Singapore's social foundations. I would like to apply them to the present context of what happens to PwDs when parental caregiving is no longer available.
I think it is important to acknowledge that Singapore has made important progress in adult disability services through successive Enabling Masterplans, and I acknowledge the recent establishment of the Multi-Agency Taskforce on Assurance for Families with Persons with Disabilities chaired by Minister of State Goh Pei Ming.
Adult disability support often extends across several decades. So, this raises for us a broader systems consideration. Do we have a consistent anticipatory framework for planning the continuity of care and participation of PwDs? In particular, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the issues raised also earlier by my hon colleagues Ms Denise Phua and Ms Kuah Boon Theng.
First, whether structured family care pathways are initiated well before caregivers are unable to provide support? Second, on how siblings and other potential caregivers are systematically engaged in transition planning. And third, how the voices of PwDs themselves are meaningfully incorporated into decisions about their future arrangements, support structures and participation in community life?
Sir, the issue before us is not simply provision of services. It is an assurance that our citizens with disabilities will continue to live lives of dignity, stability and participation even when parental care is no longer available.
Mr Cai Yinzhou. Not here. Miss Rachel Ong.
Chairman, many PwDs and employers remain unaware of available support for inclusive employment and daily living. A recent Singapore Management University (SMU) survey found that eight in 10 PwDs had never heard of employability training programmes and fewer than half of employers were aware of workplace grants and hiring incentives.
While portals, such as the SG Enabling Guide, provides useful resources, information is spread across multiple platforms, making it difficult for PwDs and caregivers to navigate support.
May I ask MSF, how will communication on employment, living and community support for PwDs be improved so individuals and employers are better informed? Will the Government consider a single, centralised portal that brings together training, employment, housing, social activities and financial assistance, so PwDs and caregivers can more easily access support?
Chairman, I thank the MSF, especially SG Enable, for the good work in uplifting our PwDs. Today, more than 30% of PwDs are in employment, with a roadmap to move up to 40% by 2030.
The Taskforce on Assurance for Families with Persons with Disabilities will also be doing more in three key areas: employment, community living and affordability.
I have families in Jalan Kayu with special needs children. Key concerns of these families include the availability of education and support services; financial support; whether they can help their children find employment or remain engaged; and what will happen to their children when they pass on.
In one particular case, I met a pair of aged parents last year caring for their 30 plus-year-old autistic son. He is on the severe spectrum side of the needs. Since then, the father has passed on and the mother now cares for the son alone.
I would like to ask the Ministry what practical strategies will be looked into to better support our families with PwDs, especially those who have graduated from the schooling system? What more can be done to improve their employment prospects, or remain engaged and cared for during their lifetime?
Chairman, today, very few counsellors are trained in Singapore Sign Language. Thus, deaf clients often rely on interpreters from an already small community. This often limits privacy and discourage self and help-seeking.
One deaf individual received counselling only after a long search. In countries, such as Canada, sign-language counselling is provided as a standard service.
May I ask the Minister: how can we expand the pool of Singapore Sign Language trained counsellors and integrate sign language competent support into mainstream mental health services? Will MSF review funding and support schemes to ensure Singapore Sign Language interpretation is systematically available across counselling, social support centres and crisis response services, so deaf Singaporeans can access help confidentially and equitably?
Minister Masagos Zulkifli.
Chairman, I thank Members for their views. MSF aims to foster a Singapore society where all families are supported at every stage of their life to thrive on their terms.
Before I elaborate on our approach, let me outline what my colleagues will share. Minister of State Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim will detail enhancements to support lower-income families, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua will elaborate on our efforts for families with PwDs and Minister of State Goh Pei Ming will touch on how we will strengthen support for families.
At MSF, our policies are anchored on four core principles: family centricity, proactive and upstream intervention, strength-based approached and whole-of-society partnership. These principles are enduring, even as we face increasingly complex issues.
First, we prioritise family centricity because the family is the basic unit of our society that provides emotional support and imparts values. Working with individuals may address immediate symptoms, but it does not tackle issues at its roots. We must build strong family relationship in order to bring about sustainable change. This is why, for all children, we seek to set good foundations for optimal health and development within family relationships and environments. For ComLink+ families, we develop a holistic action plan with the family after assessing their needs. For PwDs, we do not neglect the well-being of caregivers and family members.
Our second principle is proactive and upstream intervention. We strive to provide early support to build strong foundations and address root causes before they escalate.
Third, we focus on the strength of our clients rather than their deficits. By harnessing their strengths and assets, individuals and families are and can be empowered to achieve good outcomes.
Fourth, we work with the whole-of-society to weave a strong ecosystem of support.
MSF has been working alongside our SSAs, corporates, institutes of higher learnings (IHLs) and the community to better understand clients' needs, finetune our policies and programmes and to journey with our clients.
Such strong partnership is key. When we work together, we unlock new synergies, spark innovation and build better solutions for our clients. To build a better tomorrow for all families, we will further strengthen these partnerships. We will do this through the following three Cs: collaborating with our partners, cooperating with regional and international counterparts in shared priority areas and co-creating to develop innovations of tomorrow. Let me elaborate.
The first "C" refers to working collaboratively with partners to better serve families and individuals. In recent years, we have stepped up collaboration with sector partners to make a greater impact. We will continue to invest in such collaborations and especially with four key groups: Government agencies, SSAs, corporates and IHLs.
First, we are collaborating with Government agencies to better support lower-income families and improve social mobility, a key concern raised by Mr Xie Yao Quan. In 2025, MSF trialed the social health integration model with MOH for ComLink+ families to ensure that health challenges do not hinder their social mobility. Under this model, family coaches and healthcare staff came together to support families to adopt healthy lifestyles and to access suitable services. Later this year, we will bring more ComLink+ families on board this trial.
Today, only residents 40 and above can enrol in Healthier SG. From 2027, MOH will extend Healthier SG enrolment to eligible ComLink+ residents age 25 to 39. With this, more ComLink+ residents can benefit from personalised care from a trusted family doctor, subsidies for screening tests as well as vaccinations. They will also be able to access Health Promotion Board programmes via the Healthy 365 app. We will share more details in due course.
Second, we are collaborating with SSAs to support families. Families may require support in navigating conflict. For example, MSF works closely with SSAs under the Strengthening Family Programme (FAM) which provides counselling support for them. Over the past decade, we have worked closely with the Family Justice Court (FJC) to adopt a therapeutic justice model in resolving familial disputes so that the family can benefit from a restorative, holistic and forward-looking approach.
We have expanded our support for couples going through divorce, which Ms Diana Pang spoke about. Since July 2024, all couples with minor children must go through the co-parenting programme run by FAM centres, and that is before they filed for divorce. We hope this will prevent disagreements later over child access. But if such disagreements arise, couples can still approach the FJC for mediation or apply for a child access order or to enforce an access order. We want to encourage more couples to seek help early and not only at the point of divorce.
Therefore, MSF will work with FAM centres to ramp up family counselling capacity. By 2030, we will be able to serve 12,000 cases, double of today's caseload. Members of the public will be able to access both in-person and online counselling services. In the meantime, we will make and continue to make family counselling more accessible and provide self-help resources online to better support families.
Third, we are collaborating with corporates for more impactful philanthropy. In 2024, MSF and National Council of Social Service (NCSS) launched the Sustainable Philanthropy Framework to encourage corporates to integrate social impact with their business goals and engage in more consistent giving and volunteering. I am heartened that many corporates have adopted this framework. For instance, DBS has pledged up to $1 billion and 1.5 million employee volunteer hours over the next decade to better support those with less means, including $6.5 million to KidSTART, and $30 million to the ComLink+ Progress Packages. DBS has also embedded giving into their corporate culture and we hope more organisations will do the same.
Fourth, we are collaborating on research and programme evaluation to build a strong evidence base for tomorrow's solutions. We work with various IHLs to build up our knowledge base of what works best in Singapore.
Mr Xie called for longitudinal research to understand better the drivers of social mobility. We agree, which is why we have collaborated with the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) on a longitudinal study called Pathways and Trajectories of Households in Singapore (PATHS) to better understand this. Other partnerships include evaluating effectiveness of ComLink+ Progress Packages with IPS and the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS).
Through these collaborations, we hope that our IHLs will build renowned experts and an impactful body of knowledge on support for families and thereby lead in this field.
The second C stands for cooperate; and in this context, cooperating with regional and international partners. Because we need to work together with others, beyond our shores, in strengthening families, early childhood development and social mobility. We seek to do this at Government, academia as well as practitioner levels.
This is because challenges confronting Singapore are not unique. By cooperating with like-minded partners, we can exchange ideas and evolve best practices to better serve our respective clients.
One initiative involves our regional neighbours: Cambodia, the Philippines and Thailand. They have been keen to learn from our experience in setting up the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) and the KidSTART programme. Last month, we launched the Capability Exchange Programme to create opportunities for learning and exchanges among government officials and practitioners from these countries. This programme will establish strong networks and foster cross-sharing of evidence-based approaches to benefit young children and families.
Other platforms include conferences where researchers and policy-makers can interact and germinate ideas and relationships. Last year, MSF and IPS co-organised the inaugural International Conference on Societies of Opportunity (ICSO), bringing together local and international thought leaders to discuss how we can better create opportunities and strengthen social mobility for our people. We will further such collaborations at ICSO in 2027.
We also organised the biennial Asian Family Conference, a dedicated regional policy-practice-research platform to discuss emerging family trends, policies and practices. Later this year, we will share findings of the inaugural regional collaboration between Singapore and ASEAN member states that will enable us and our regional partners to better support families in our respective countries.
I am excited by the new opportunities that such partnerships bring, so that we can do better by and for our people.
Before I go to the third C, let me touch on our professionals. Professionals are the backbone of our sector. To enable them to deliver their best, we must first ensure that they are well-supported and cared for.
Mr Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari asked about support for professionals' development and well-being. SSAs can leverage training subsidies and sponsorships under the Professional Capability Grant to support staff development and upskilling. Recently, we enhanced the schemes to benefit more professionals to support their development and retention. Eligible social service professionals may also tap on the Sabbatical Leave Scheme, which gives them 10 weeks of paid leave to recharge and refresh.
For protection practitioners, we launched the Protection Practitioners Care Fund to enable SSAs to implement well-being initiatives and practices to support them even better.
Officers at MSF can access Well-being@Gov, which provides well-being resources, coaching and counselling services. hose in the Protective Services receive additional support including clinical supervision and peer support groups.
But support for our professionals does not stop here. We will leverage AI and technology tools to enhance their quality of life while making work more impactful. This is how the third C comes in. Co-creation. Co-creating innovations of tomorrow that will improve the quality of life for social sector professionals and clients.
As the sector developer, NCSS is working closely with public and private sector agencies to develop and drive the adoption of AI and technology solutions across the sector. One such example is Scribe, a tool developed by Open Government Products that translates and summarises conversations in multiple languages and transforms transcripts into structured notes. Just over the past year, over 100 SSAs have adopted Scribe. We have heard from many social workers that Scribe has saved a lot of time and allowed them to focus on what they care about most – their clients.
For the early childhood sector, Mr Melvin Yong will be pleased to know that under the refreshed Industry Digital Plan, ECDA will be supporting preschools to adopt AI-enabled tools, including AI video analytics solutions. Specifically, these tools will support preschool educators and leaders in tasks such as curriculum planning, portfolio management and reviewing closed-circuit television footages.
Ultimately, our goal is to ease our professionals' workload, enhance their well-being and improve care and education of our children.
At MSF, we have also similarly incorporated AI and technology solutions to support our officers in their work. For example, in our Youth Homes, time-consuming processes such as filling out paperwork and cross-referencing files are now digitalised under the Home Central Information System. Officers also use AI tools such as Pair and AIBots that generate first drafts to help officers work more efficiently.
Taken together, Youth Guidance Officers such as Mr Rayner Hoe, now have more bandwidth to engage with youths, which is the most fulfilling part of the job.
Beyond these examples, there is still much more potential for technology to be harnessed to improve the quality of life for our professionals.
But I will now turn to our clients. In the past few years, MSF has worked closely with the sector to co-create innovative solutions to make our services more client-centric. One example would be the Family Services Landscape Review, which we announced in 2024. We have been engaging SSAs, practitioners and other stakeholders to reimagine how we can better support our clients where they are – one-stop shop, something that Ms Mariam Jaafar advocated for.
Another example would be the Enabled Living Programme, where we work with our partners to pilot innovative approaches to empower persons with disabilities to live independently, build meaningful connections and enhance their overall well-being.
In addition, we want to push the envelope and co-create AI and technology solutions that directly enhance the quality of life of our clients.
In my work trips to China and Qatar last year, I was deeply impressed by the adoption of innovative AI solutions and the possibilities they presented to enable persons with disabilities to work, live and play.
For hearing-impaired individuals like Mr Raiyme, who is a desktop engineer at NCS, new technologies coming onstream can be very empowering socially. For instance, with the real-time transcription and translation capabilities of the LLVision's AI-powered glasses, Raiyme is able to converse better at home with his mom, whom he lipreads in Malay. And of course, the AI machine needs to learn Malay better. And also, with his daughter's Mandarin teacher. He does not need translation because AI will do it for him.
In Qatar, hologram assistants that can respond to hearing-impaired persons via sign language are installed in public spaces, including public transportation sites. These technologies may only impact a small proportion of each society, but the impact is profound on the beneficiaries and their families. And when we collaborate and cooperate with regional partners, it allows us to have greater scale to support the development and adoption of such technology.
For persons with disabilities, SG Enable will continue to champion the responsible use of AI and technology solutions – a topic that is close to Miss Rachel Ong's heart. Subsidies are provided to persons with disabilities under the Assistive Technology Fund to purchase assistive technology devices to enable independent living. SG Enable will curate more devices to and continue to create more devices for persons with disabilities, including those enhanced by AI capabilities.
Under the Enabling Lives Initiative Grant, funding is also provided to support AI solutions that improve independence and expand employment opportunities for persons with disabilities. One example would be AiSee, an AI-powered wearable device that enables persons with visual impairment to better understand their surroundings through voice prompts.
Beyond the belief that AI and technology takes away jobs, they can in fact be a force for good; enablers that allow us to break new ground both in how we support our professionals and clients. I am excited by its potential and opportunities.
Chairman, I will now conclude. Our goal is clear. We want better for the clients and families we support: better outcomes, better opportunities, better lives. This is what drives our work at MSF. The way to achieve this is through all of us working together and staying united, especially amidst global uncertainties.
At MSF, we are making progress with our partners across the social service sector, with corporates, with IHLs, with volunteers and with the community. Together, we have been able to make strides in nurturing resilient individuals, strong families and a caring society.
I am heartened that since the launch of SG Gives last year, we have seen over $100 million in donations made to the Community Chest, President's Challenge and the Collective for a Stronger Society. The Government will match these donations to amplify our collective impact and support communities in need.
But there is more we can do.
I call on all Singaporeans to join us in this endeavour. When we work together, we unlock new possibilities and achieve far better outcomes than what we can accomplish alone. It is this collective spirit and the willingness of Singaporeans to support and empower one another that drives real and lasting change. Which is why MSF will soon launch a campaign "Better Starts with Us", because at MSF, we believe it is through this shared commitment that each of us, we are not just building a strong and united society, but a Singapore that is a great place for all families to achieve their goals and aspirations. [Applause.]
Senior Minister of State Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.
PAPERCUTS