Sewerage and Drainage (Amendment) Bill

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.

6.51 pm

Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, I declare that I am a lawyer by profession, whose practice areas include, but are not limited to, criminal and regulatory matters. I rise in support of this Bill.

The amendments proposed herein are timely, especially since the last Sewerage and Drainage (Amendment) Bill, or in short, SDA, was in 2012. Mr Speaker, my speech for today will focus on the enhanced penalties proposed by this Bill, which, in my view, are greatly needed.

In Senior Minister of State Amy Khor's reply to an oral Parliamentary Question during the sitting on 6 August 2019, she shared with this House that since 2014, PUB has prosecuted 119 companies for illegal discharge of trade effluent into the sewers, where the discharge did not comply with the stipulations. Senior Minister of State Khor further shared that of the 119 prosecuted companies, 21 were second-time offenders and another 23 committed the offences more than twice.

The first clarification I seek is for the latest statistics. This will form the backdrop for the enhancement of the penalties sought to be implemented by this Bill. It will perhaps also elucidate the impetus and necessity for these enhanced penalties.

The enhanced penalties proposed by this Bill, if passed, will strengthen the punitive levers to deter illegal discharge and impose harsher punishments. For first-time offenders, there will now be a minimum fine in the sum of $40,000. The maximum fine of $200,000 will not be changed. As for the offenders who commit an offence for the second time or more, a minimum fine will also be introduced in the quantum of $80,000. On the other hand, the maximum fine will be doubled to $400,000.

Mr Speaker, it is a trite legal principle that the punishment must fit the crime. To this end, while I understand from Senior Minister of State Amy Khor's speech earlier on, on how these fine amounts were derived, such as taking reference from other enforcement statutes, such as the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act. But the more important issue would be that, would this be sufficient to deter the targeted illegality?

While we take care to not exact a punishment that would exceed the crime, this must be balanced against the risk that offenders may simply view any fine as an acceptable business cost. This will undermine legislative intent as well as public safety.

Just recently, news reports carrying pictures of a river of red flowing through a canal close to Kembangan MRT station. The sight, by itself, was concerning enough such that members of the public reported it to NEA.

In a 2019 Straits Times news article, PUB had reportedly prosecuted 38 companies in that past year for illegally dumping waste water containing chemicals or other materials into the public sewers. 18 out of those 38 companies, almost half, were repeat offenders. Clearly, repeat offenders have not been deterred. According to PUB, trade effluent illegally discharged into public sewers pose significant risks to public health and the environment.

Mr Speaker, a group of unsung heroes who work tirelessly for the sake of our people and environment, but who are exposed to the risks of such irresponsible behaviour, are our sewerage and drainage workers. The onus is on the Members of this House to ensure that they, too, get to work under safe and fair conditions. Thus, I ask the Ministry if we should also consider mandating business owners to take up public liability insurance?

Notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Amy Khor? Sorry, I missed out Mr Louis Ng.

6.55 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): I have to apologise to you as well, I guess, for whatever I have done.

Sir, this Bill will secure our used-water system, enhance our flood resilience and enhance PUB's operations. I have three points of clarification to raise.

My first point is on the introduction of minimum fines. Sections 16, 16A and 17 will be amended to impose minimum fines for offences relating to discharge of dangerous or hazardous substances. Mandatory minimum sentences restrict a Judge's ability to exercise discretion in determining an appropriate sentence based on the facts before the Court. I appreciate that mandatory minimum sentences can send a public signal on the severity of an offence and serve a deterrent effect.

Mandatory minimum sentences may also signal the Government's view that the sentences imposed by the Courts, thus far, have not been sufficiently high. However, there are less restrictive measures for achieving deterrence and signalling to the Court that heavier sentences should be imposed. This may include sentencing guidelines by the Sentencing Advisory Panel or even statements from the Minister in Parliament on the severity that certain offences should carry. Can the Senior Minister of State elaborate on why it is necessary for these offences to resort to mandatory minimum sentences?

My second point is on the recovery of expenses incurred by PUB. Under the current Sewerage and Drainage Act, there are provisions for PUB to recover expenses reasonably incurred by PUB, including from persons who fail to comply with PUB's notices and orders or in cases of emergencies. The Bill will introduce amendments to refine the PUB's powers to recover and apportion costs and expenses as it thinks just.

I support such recovery mechanisms based on the polluter pays principle. These provisions ensure that the cost of undoing any damage done is not externalised to taxpayers. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify what is the intended effect of introducing wording that PUB may recover costs it thinks "just"? What criteria will PUB apply in determining when it will or will not recover costs?

Can the Senior Minister of State share how actively the existing cost recovery provisions have been utilised? Can the Senior Minister of State share the quantum of the sums that have been recovered and the types of cases where PUB have taken steps to recover expenses? Can the Senior Minister of State also share whether PUB's intention is to rely on the cost recovery mechanisms more often in the future?

My third and final point is on PUB's powers to enter any premises without notice in cases of emergencies. Under the current Act, powers to enter without notice may only be exercised for classes of premises declared by the Minister to be liable to inspection without notice or where an authorised officer suspects that an offence was committed.

The Bill makes eleven amendments to allow PUB to enter any premises without notice to carry out urgent rectification works in cases of emergency. This is a significant expansion of PUB's powers. Can the Senior Minister of State provide more guidance on what situations constitute cases of emergency? Can the Senior Minister of State also share which individuals will determine whether there is a case of emergency requiring entry without notice? Upon entry without notice, is there a time limit within which PUB is required to notify the owners of the entry?

Notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Amy Khor.

6.59 pm

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their interest in and support of this Bill. Let me address the queries and concerns raised under three topics, namely penalties, flood protection and enhancing PUB's operations.

First, on the topic of penalties. Mr Louis Ng asked why there is a need to introduce mandatory minimum penalties for illegal trade effluent discharge. Ms Hany Soh asked how the penalty amounts were derived and whether they would be sufficient to deter the targeted illegality.

Illegal trade effluent discharges have severe impacts on our used water system and, in turn, our NEWater production. They can also pose safety risks to PUB staff. PUB has undertaken much effort to send a strong signal, through industry engagement and publicising enforcement efforts, to reinforce the gravity of such illegal discharge offences. We had also increased maximum penalties in 2012 and 2015, including for three of the offences that we are now proposing to introduce mandatory minimum penalties for.

Despite these measures, there remains a number of recalcitrant offenders. Ms Hany Soh asked for the latest statistics. From 2017 to 2023, PUB prosecuted 90 offenders for 295 trade effluent-related offences in Court. On average, about 70% of the offenders prosecuted every year are repeat offenders.

To provide an example, in April 2018, a recalcitrant company was caught in the act during PUB's overnight inspections, discharging industrial used water containing 16 different types of prohibited Volatile Organic Compounds. These compounds are flammable and could cause fires in the sewers and downstream at the Jurong Water Reclamation Plant, thus posing serious safety risks. Additionally, the company's discharge contained heavy metals and chemicals in concentrations that exceeded the allowable limits, which could severely disrupt the used water treatment processes and, consequently, NEWater production. Prior to this, the company had already committed 20 offences of illegal discharge over several past occasions. For these acts, under prevailing legislation, the recalcitrant company was fined only $16,600 for two offences.

To give another example, in March 2018, a company was prosecuted for discharging used water containing hazardous substances into the sewerage system at their premises. Prior to this, they had committed offences over four occasions between 2012 and 2015. The recalcitrant company was fined $12,000 for three offences. The recalcitrance of these companies show that the fines imposed on them are clearly inadequate to discourage them from re-offending.

I echo Ms Hany Soh's sentiments that the workers who work hard to maintain our sewerage and drainage system should be able to work under safe conditions. PUB takes all necessary measures to ensure the safety of its workers, including providing insurance coverage for worker injuries. Our amendments will strengthen deterrence to prevent the illegal discharges which threaten worker safety.

Therefore, we are introducing mandatory minimum penalties for illegal trade effluent discharges in order to come down harder on offenders. It will help ensure that, for both first-time and recalcitrant offenders, the penalties are adequate. This is in view of the potential impact to NEWater production. The increased penalties better reflect the severe impact on public safety and our water supply, as well as better align with similar offences in other Acts. Together with the existing suite of measures that I touched on earlier in my opening speech, the increased penalties will help increase deterrence.

Even as we impose heavier penalties to correct behaviour, preventive measures are equally important to avoid having illegal discharges in the first place. The mandatory minimum penalties will work alongside these efforts to deter illegal trade effluent discharge. Let me elaborate further.

Before we grant trade premises the approval to discharge trade effluent, we have a thorough process to review the type of chemicals used and the quantity and quality of discharge from these trade premises. PUB will also assess whether these premises have adequate wastewater treatment facilities to remove their waste or have engaged licensed waste collectors to remove their waste.

We inspect and monitor our sewers 24/7 using a real-time online network of over 100 volatile organic compound sensors at various industrial clusters across Singapore. This is complemented by more than 150 microbial electrochemical sensors for heavy metals and cyanide. If we detect any abnormalities, PUB officers will be deployed swiftly to address the illegal discharges at source and mitigate the impact to PUB's processes.

I urge companies to play your part by properly treating or disposing your waste before discharging trade effluent into our sewerage system.

Next, on flood protection. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the requirement for home owners to maintain their drainage system, the potential financial burden this may pose to home owners and whether the Bill should have a cost-sharing mechanism among private owners who share drainage facilities.

Maintaining a drainage system involves regular inspection and clearing of litter and other debris like leaves to ensure the smooth flow of water through the drains. It also involves repairing damaged drains when they occur, but this would be infrequent. In landed estates, this is a shared responsibility between PUB, NEA and home owners.

For public drains, such as roadside drains in landed estates, PUB has an ongoing programme to systematically maintain, upgrade and rehabilitate them. NEA also performs regular inspection and flushing of these public drains. For private drainage systems, home owners are responsible for the maintenance of their own private drainage systems, such as perimeter drains that run within their properties. Given that private drains belong to the owners of such properties, it is their responsibility to maintain them and it would not be prudent to make use of Government funds to do so. Their failure to repair or maintain their private drainage system could ultimately lead to flooding and property damage at their own premises and neighbouring premises.

Today, legislation already requires home owners to maintain their private sewerage systems and drains. Most home owners already maintain their drains properly today. The proposed amendment in the Bill is to explicitly spell out this requirement.

Regarding the cost-sharing mechanism that Mr Yip suggested, the Bill does provide for this. For private stormwater drainage systems that serve a group of residents, neighbours can arrange amongst themselves to apportion the costs of maintenance. The Bill also provides for PUB to help step in to carry out the works and apportion the costs where necessary, based on the facts of the case.

On drainage, Mr Yip Hon Weng also asked whether permitting PUB to charge fees for assuming the maintenance of private drainage systems could lead to cost hikes for community amenities and facilities. I would like to reiterate that all property owners are already required to maintain their own private stormwater drainage systems. They can choose the most cost-effective way to do so. This allows them the flexibility to choose to do so either on their own or engage commercial providers to assist them.

The situations where PUB may have to step in to maintain these private drainage systems using public funds are rare. This only happens if there is a risk of flooding that may impact the public or neighbouring properties. So, this, indeed, if it happens, is ad hoc. In such rare instances, since public funds are used, it is only fair that PUB charges a fair fee, in line with good financial governance.

As I have explained in my opening speech, actions in one part of the stormwater drainage system can lead to significant impact elsewhere. We seek the cooperation of all premises owners to play their part to keep our stormwater drainage system in proper working order so that we can keep everyone safe from floods.

Finally, on enhancing PUB's operations. Mr Louis Ng also asked what are the costs that PUB can recover that it thinks are "just", when PUB steps in to carry out urgent rectification works instead of a responsible third party.

The Bill provides for PUB to step in urgently, when necessary, to carry out rectification works to restore the function of the public sewerage system or stormwater drainage system and provides the legal powers for PUB to recover the cost of the rectification works from the culprit. This provision applies when there are any illegal alterations, works or damages that affect the conveyance of the public sewerage system or stormwater drainage system. In such cases, PUB will recover the cost of the works that the culprit would have incurred had he undertaken the necessary rectifications himself. This is consistent with the principle that those responsible for causing the damage should bear the cost of rectification rather than for this expense to be passed on to taxpayers.

To give an example, in 2020, a contractor illegally damaged a one-metre-diameter sewer outside Yio Chu Kang MRT station. The contractor was laying gas pipes and had punctured through the sewer, which served a large area of Ang Mo Kio. Conveyance was affected and flow was building up with imminent sewer overflow. The contractor did not have the resources to deploy mitigating measures and PUB had to step in urgently to divert the flow. The diversion cost of about $300,000 that PUB incurred was eventually recovered from the contractor. The cost recovery was done administratively then. This Bill provides PUB the legal powers to do so in future.

Mr Louis Ng and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about emergency powers of entry without notice. Broadly, they raised concerns on why these powers are necessary, how they will be operationalised, and processes for redress following the entry. Let me address each in turn.

First, emergency powers of entry are crucial to protect public health and safety. A choke in the public sewerage systems may lead to sewage overflow in neighbouring units, impacting public health. A blocked stormwater drainage system may cause flooding during heavy storms, posing safety risks to the wider public and potentially causing property damage to an area.

Currently, PUB must serve a 14-day notice under the SDA before PUB can enter a property to conduct repairs. In urgent situations where immediate action is required to address public health and safety concerns, this is just too long a wait. Damage could already be done. In our experience, most occupiers will readily oblige when PUB explains the situation. However, there is a small number who refuse to cooperate. These powers will have to be used in such situations.

Next, let me address the operationalisation of these powers. PUB officers will only request entry into premises during emergency situations. These are situations when a suspected sewer or drainage choke threatens the health and safety of surrounding units.

In such situations, PUB's authorised officers will obtain the necessary internal approvals to ensure accountability in the exercise of emergency powers. Upon arrival on site, the officers will first seek the consent of the occupier to enter their premises by explaining the urgency of the situation, backed by these emergency entry powers. If the owner refuses, PUB will strive to resolve the situation through other means where possible, such as approaching the owners of other premises further from the choke to request alternative access, and adopting other technical solutions, such as pumping and localised protection. However, these may involve higher cost, more time, reduced efficiency and disamenities to other neighbours. If no occupier is present, PUB's authorised officers would request for the Police to be present prior to entering the premises. After completing the works, PUB will promptly notify the owner about the emergency rectification works and provide contact details for any follow-up questions or service feedback.

I want to assure Members that we strive to balance between individuals' privacy and emergency needs, and PUB will exercise these powers reasonably and judiciously.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the incorporation of Codes of Practice (COPs) by reference. He asked how PUB would ensure that the adopted standards are appropriate and not overly onerous for local communities, especially older estates with unique infrastructure challenges.

I would like to clarify that the new requirements will not be retrospectively applied to old developments. Instead, PUB actively engages businesses and residents in these existing developments that are in flood prone areas to raise awareness on rainy weather preparedness and distributes portable flood barriers to mitigate flood risks for these stakeholders.

PUB's COP on Surface Water Drainage, and the COP on Sewerage and Sanitary Works provide technical information and guidelines for owners of new developments or those looking to redevelop their premises, on planning, designing and constructing the associated systems to ensure that safety and functional requirements are adhered to. These COPs will be incorporated by reference through regulations, giving PUB legal recourse when there are violations.

PUB consults extensively with key stakeholders to develop and amend these COPs. These include professional bodies like The Institution of Engineers, Singapore (IES), and the Singapore Plumbing Society (SPS), as well as trade associations and other public agencies. This collaborative approach ensures that the COPs are technically sound and practicable.

I would like to assure Mr Yip that we do not adopt a one size fits all approach. For example, the COP on Surface Water Drainage specifies minimum platform levels and crest levels that developments must meet to protect themselves against floods. For developments with links to essential facilities like MRT stations, we will impose more stringent requirements to provide a higher level of protection. In cases where site constraints make it challenging to meet these standards, we will consider allowing alternative solutions such as implementing flood barriers to achieve the same outcomes. In fact, the Bill has also provided for PUB to waive its legislated requirements in such situations.

In conclusion, the Sewerage and Drainage (Amendment) Bill is intended to protect our used water system, strengthen flood resilience and enhance our operational effectiveness. PUB will continue to partner with industry, private developments, and the wider public to engender collective action toward these goals. With that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

7.18 pm

Mr Speaker: Any clarifications for Senior Minister of State Khor? I do not see any.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan].

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

ADJOURNMENT MOTION The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn."

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.

Building Respectful and Harassment-free Workplaces for Teachers and Educators: ###### 7.21 pm

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): At the Annual Schools Work Plan Seminar this September, the Minister for Education raised an important conversation on setting clear expectations and boundaries for teachers and educators to manage their workload, including their right to disconnect outside of school hours and limiting communication with parents to official channels such as their school email or office number. I thank the Minister for asserting these baselines that will lay the foundation for building respectful and harassment-free workplaces for teachers and educators.

It is indeed timely and critical to raise this conversation as their roles and responsibilities today have expanded well beyond merely imparting subject knowledge. And together with Senior Parliamentary Secretary Shawn Huang, we recently engaged union leaders from the education cluster of unions which cover unions across the entire education sector from pre-school to mainstream as well as Institutes of Technical Education (ITEs), polytechnics, universities and private education providers on the protection and well-being of teachers and educators across the education and continuing education and training (CET) ecosystem. I thank them for sharing with us their valuable insights and feedback based on experiences on the ground and handling grievances of teachers and educators.

Teachers and educators today are tasked with addressing a wide range of student needs including supporting students' 21st Century Competencies, Character and Citizenship Education, Co-Curricular Activities, well-being as Teacher Counsellors, and many more. These tall orders cannot be met without enhanced support and protection for them. In the past four years I have persistently raised questions in this House on enhanced well-being support and harassment prevention for this group. Through this Adjournment Motion, I hope and wish to reiterate the call to foster workplaces that uphold dignity, safety, and respect for teachers and educators through a pre-emptive, strengthened, and holistic approach, or what I call the "3Ps" of Prevent, Protect and Partner.

First, Prevent. Teaching is a work of heart, and our teachers and educators are deeply committed to taking care of students, but we cannot expect them to be accessible to parents and guardians, or even students and school leaders, round the clock, especially for non-urgent matters. Unrestricted communication can lead to fatigue, stress and burnout, impairing their ability to fully focus on what matters most: teaching.

I am heartened that the Ministry of Education (MOE) has addressed this issue proactively through its refreshed Guidelines for School-Home Partnership, also known as the GSHP, which serves as a how-to guide for working together "positively, constructively, and respectfully". However, I opine that any ambiguity about expectations and boundaries left open to individual interpretation can lead to unconscious encroachment into teachers and educators' personal time, as well as place the burden of setting limits on them, which can be both challenging and uncomfortable.

I therefore propose for each school and educational institutions to develop and make transparent a set of communication protocols to empower teachers and educators to set clear and firm boundaries from the onset. These protocols will serve as a more school-specific and enforceable extension of the refreshed GSHP, where schools can stipulate official hours during which teachers and educators may be contacted and establish alternatives for urgent matters outside those times, in a way that best fits their own context and in consultation with all stakeholders. These protocols will help parents and guardians as well, by preventing misunderstandings on when and how to reach out and ensuring that communication is efficient and purposeful.

Establishing these boundaries will not compromise the quality of support offered to students and families. Most students and families use existing communication channels appropriately and thus are already respectful of these boundaries. And in fact, when teachers and educators can maintain work-life harmony, they return each day refreshed, prepared and engaged, benefiting students directly. Establishing these boundaries marks a significant step towards a more balanced, supportive and sustainable education system.

An especially vulnerable group here is preschool teachers, who have frequent interactions with parents, since parents of young children tend to be very highly involved and protective. Young children also have higher emotional and physical needs, which can blur professional lines. In situations where parents disagree with teachers' handling of children displaying difficult behaviour or expect them to be overly accommodating to unreasonable requests, teachers may feel pressured into accepting disrespectful or harassing behaviour.

This is where the commitment of strong leadership to upholding guidelines and protocols is key, without which guidelines and protocols remain mere suggestions. Good practices can only take root when standards are reinforced consistently and their importance demonstrated through action. Teachers and educators need to know that school leaders have their backs. I commend the school leaders, supervisors, and superintendents that check in with their officers regularly. I also urge them to readily empower teachers and educators to stand up against harassing or disrespectful behaviour should they occur.

Second, Protect. There are few cases of harassment and bullying of teachers and educators in Singapore. However, for the minority of cases, each should be investigated seriously and without delay, with strong consequences for aggressors and compassionate support for those affected. I urge schools to re-examine and, where necessary, strengthen their punitive measures and escalation procedures and processes. At the same time, we must prioritise repairing the harm caused to victims, recognising that those who have experienced harassment or bullying may suffer lasting effects on their career confidence, mental health and sense of security.

Teaching is an inherently socially and emotionally demanding job, but teachers and educators should never accept disrespectful behaviour like abusive language from parents and guardians, inappropriate comments in the classroom, or unwelcome physical contact as "part of the job". Every teacher and educator must be made aware of their rights and protections available to them to prevent underreporting and failure to seek support. They should feel safe to inform their school leaders or MOE, or in more severe cases where their safety is threatened, file a police report without fear of retaliation, blame or being penalised in their performance reviews. School leadership must also be sensitive to the implications of power dynamics and equipped to escalate the matter after mediation or formal warnings have failed.

Our teachers and educators make a vital contribution to our nation by nurturing the young minds of tomorrow. They have the right to work in environments free from harassment, intimidation, and discrimination. We cannot risk allowing behaviour that undermines them to go unchecked. Implementing stronger punitive measures and escalation processes will underline a position of zero-tolerance. This includes in-school suspensions with counselling and reflection requirements or mandatory social-emotional learning lessons for students as well as stronger penalties and interventions for adult offenders. Consequently, any accusations made should be thoroughly investigated and the accused should have the opportunity to respond.

Perhaps the Ministry can also look into conducting mandatory training programmes on recognising, preventing and healing from harassment and bullying that are trauma-informed for all school staff. When in doubt, teachers and educators who are union members can also approach their union for help. Our teachers' and education unions in Singapore hear many cases of grievances a year, ranging from managing students' misbehaviour and abusive attacks from parents to work appraisals, mental health issues, and career progression. Our unions stand ready to champion all teachers and educators from trainee teachers to veteran faculty, from pre-schools to special-education (SPED) schools to Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) including ITE, polytechnics, universities, private education providers and international schools as well.

For IHLs, where parents are less involved and students more mature and motivated in pursuing their academic and career goals, the number of harassment cases may be limited. But even a small number of isolated cases can have serious impacts, not only on the individuals involved but rippled across the broader school community. To build a respectful and inclusive teaching and learning environment, campuses can consider working together with unions to provide a dedicated office that can professionally receive, handle and manage harassment complaints.

This dedicated office typically acts as an informal and neutral "help desk" of sort, that provides confidential conflict resolution options and resources to faculty, staff and students that are, crucially, free from departmental influence. At the moment, an equivalent of such a dedicated office that acts as an unbiased and third-party channel does not seem to exist or be widely known in IHLs. Faculty, staff and students' primary recourse is to approach school leaders, human resource (HR) departments or supervisors, which may discourage reporting of sensitive or uncomfortable matters.

A dedicated office is, thus, especially helpful for those who are not ready to pursue formal action but still want to discuss options or seek advice on navigating the system, a more flexible approach to formal HR processes. The dedicated office's mandate can also be expanded to include proactive responsibilities, such as identifying systemic issues and recommending changes to workplace policies, standards and codes of conduct to school leadership based on case trends and feedback.

I am heartened that teachers and educators who require psychological support are able to tap on a host of resources including the Ministry of Education's (MOE's) in-house professional counselling services, schools' Wellness Ambassadors and additional funding and resources for Staff Well-Being Committees. I would suggest, additionally, that teachers and educators who have experienced harassment and bullying be given the option to take mental health leave from work, if needed, or in the interim, participate in the Teacher Work Attachment Plus programme to regain a sense of confidence and stability.

Further, access to these well-being resources should include allied educators, like school counsellors and special educational needs officers, as well as allied staff in special education (SPED) schools, like teacher aides and vocational education personnel, who may face higher physical risks and emotional strain but receive less support and protection than teachers. It is commendable that MOE has made significant efforts to break down silos between mainstream schools and SPED schools, including increased opportunities for intermingling among children as well as attachments, rotations and secondments for teachers.

I submit that MOE should ensure that Allied Educators and SPED non-teaching staff are not overlooked in the policy decisions surrounding their well-being, protection and career progression.

Third, partner. We often say, "It takes a village to raise a child". To promote a positive school culture of mutual support and trust, we need all hands on deck. If our teachers and educators are not given the respect that they are due, there is a problem beyond that of individuals' actions. It is a community problem, influenced by our shared beliefs, perspectives and practices. The community then needs to be part of the solution. Law enforcement agencies and community partners need to step up as well to partner with and support our educational institutions.

Parents and guardians, for one, play an influential role in instilling into and reinforcing students' respect for teachers and educators. Our children take their cues from us. When we treat their teachers and educators with courtesy and gratitude, we inspire our children to do the same. If they feel misunderstood or think that something is unfair, rather than responding defensively, we can guide them to discuss these issues respectfully.

MOE has also stepped up its efforts in engaging and cultivating strong partnerships with families by working with parent support groups (PSGs). Such networks help share responsibility and resources and can make a big difference in easing teachers and educators' workload. By simply sharing homework help or answers to straightforward questions with each other, instead of defaulting to teachers and educators as the point-of-contact, parents and guardians free up time for teachers and educators to focus on more meaningful tasks. Schools should continue to encourage parents and guardians to reach out to their peer networks as a primary resource, leveraging technologies like an online forum or private chat group. PSGs can also organise more informal meet-ups, so that parents and guardians can get to know one another better and foster a sense of community.

I am mindful that teachers and educators' issues can be deeply gendered, given that this is a profession disproportionately over-represented by women. Female teachers from primary school to junior college, for example, make up over 70% of the teaching staff, according to education statistics released in 2023.

Although the profession is of course not the sole purview of women, it has a strong association with nurturing and emotional labour, roles traditionally assigned to women. As such, teachers and educators may be expected to perform additional emotional labour, such as comforting students and handling interpersonal conflicts without formal compensation, despite the demands on their time and energy. This devaluation not only impacts them financially, but also the respect and recognition they receive, since it perpetuates the notion that such work is less skilled. This is also known as "invisible labour".

Teachers and educators should, therefore, be fairly compensated for their extended duties in providing nurturing and emotional labour, such as teachers who take on additional caseloads as teacher counsellors. While schools currently have the flexibility to reduce the teaching or committee duties of teacher counsellors to provide them with adequate time to counsel students with moderate needs, formally recognising and compensating their work via an incentive bonus scheme can help validate the extra work often expected from those in teaching roles, reducing burnout and acknowledging their full contributions.

On a more macro level, we also want to make sure that the teaching profession is respected and appreciated by the wider community, which can help prevent and reduce the mistreatment of teachers and educators. By raising the status of teaching as an attractive, meaningful and esteemed career does not have to come from the top-down, but from within.

I am, therefore, imploring school leaders to entrust teachers and educators with more autonomy over their ways of working and teaching. This means holding space for teachers and educators to share their feedback as well as listening and taking into consideration their ideas.

Teachers and educators possess first-hand and in-depth knowledge of their students' evolving needs, making them uniquely positioned to identify gaps in school programmes, culture and policies. We must believe they hold within themselves, the creativity and innovation to create impressive and contextually relevant ways of working and teaching that are sustainable and effective. Partnering teachers and educators in this regard, therefore, also reflects respect and recognition of their expertise.

To be clear, what I am suggesting is not to add yet another role onto teachers and educators' ever-growing list of demands that they also be counsellors, helpline operators, administrators, event organisers and so on. On the contrary, by allowing teachers and educators a say in how they work and teach, we may be able to address their perennial pain points of managing heavy workloads, burnout and poor student behaviour.

More importantly, which I find lacking, is the strong involvement of our unions in the co-creation and development of these policies and frameworks to build a harassment-free and respectful workplace or school environment across the entire education spectrum. I suggest that MOE can spearhead a coordinated national tripartite effort to prevent the abuse and harassment of teachers and educators, perhaps, by forming a tripartite workgroup to create a framework on building a respectful and harassment-free workplace. This will allow teachers and educators' voices to be represented and allow them a seat at the table.

The framework can aim to provide educational institutions with: one, a common definition of abuse and harassment and, thereby, a consistent set of standards to safeguard teachers and educators; two, recommended protocols for immediate incident response, reporting and post-incident management; and three, recommended follow-up actions to be taken against perpetrators that prioritise restorative practices for students and strengthens penalties and interventions for adult offenders.

When parents respect teachers and educators, their children do too. When school leadership trusts their officers to do what they do best – teach; it sends a powerful message about the quality and value of the profession.

In conclusion, the success of any educational institution rests on the well-being of its teachers and educators. I urge all relevant stakeholders in our child-raising "village" to commit to building a respectful and harassment-free workplace for our teachers and educators. When we prevent harassment and bullying by enacting clear and transparent guidelines and protocols, protect teachers and educators by strengthening punitive measures, escalation processes and restorative practices and, finally, cultivate strong partnerships among ecosystem stakeholders, we foster a school culture where every teacher and educator feels valued, supported and safe.

Teachers and educators, whom we make exceptional demands of, are passionate individuals who have chosen to dedicate their careers to educating our children and youths. I am confident that every single one of us in this room can think of at least one teacher or educator who has touched our lives and changed us in some irrevocable way. Our teachers and educators must be empowered to report instances of abusive behaviour and harassment without fear of repercussions.

The National Trades Union Congress' affiliated unions in the education cluster stand ready to champion their needs and well-being. Let us pay their contributions forward by upholding the dignity, safety and respect for all teachers and educators, because every teacher matters, every educator matters and every worker matters. [ Applause. ]

Mr Speaker: Minister of State Gan Siow Huang.

7.40 pm

The Minister of State for Education (Ms Gan Siow Huang): Mr Speaker, I would like to thank Mr Patrick Tay for his heartfelt appreciation and concern for our teachers and educators.

In front of the MOE building at Buona Vista stands a poignant structure: a hand gently lifting a child. This powerful image captures the essence of our teachers' calling. Every day, in classrooms across our nation, our teachers embrace the profound responsibility of "holding the future of Singapore in their hands".

Each of us has been touched by the dedication of a teacher at some point in our lives. From kindergarten to university, these teachers shape not just our minds, but also our character. That is why teachers are so valued by our society and deserve our respect. We deeply appreciate the vital role that our teachers play and we are committed to supporting their well-being.

We recognise that being a teacher comes with its own set of challenges and pressures. All of us at MOE are deeply committed to creating a safe and nurturing environment for our teachers to flourish in their roles that they play. An essential part of fostering this supportive environment in our schools and MOE Kindergartens, is ensuring that our teachers are protected from any form of mistreatment. It is necessary that we call out abusive, harassing and disrespectful behaviour towards our teachers and educators.

When our teachers or non-teaching staff face or witness an incident of workplace harassment, they should report it and approach their school leaders for advice and support. Alternatively, they can also reach out to MOE HR. Whichever route they choose, the reported incident will be taken seriously, treated with utmost confidence and thoroughly investigated. We will not hesitate to take action against the perpetrator, including filing a police report, where necessary.

It is also crucial to provide a safe environment and support for the victims of harassment, as the harassment could emotionally affect our teachers and educators. Professional counselling services are available to our teachers and educators, to support them in their recovery and mental wellness. Where appropriate, we also facilitate alternative work arrangements or grant leave to further support the victims in their healing process. Our educators in IHLs and SPED schools have access to such support too.

Private preschool operators have in place similar policies and measures to safeguard their educators' interest. The Early Childhood Development Agency has also put in place guidelines in preschool educators' learning frameworks to guide educators in establishing and fostering effective partnerships with parents.

While there are various measures and support systems in place for our educators across all levels, it is important to recognise that their ability to perform their crucial roles often depends on a support system that extends beyond the classroom and the institution. This support system includes parents and the unions, all of whom play vital roles in enabling our educators to do their job well.

Parents are our key partners in nurturing our young. This partnership is most effective when founded on mutual trust and respect. This year, MOE and the National Advisory on COMmunity and PArents in Support of Schools, or COMPASS, refreshed the GSHP. These guidelines incorporate inputs from parents and educators and provide focused guidance on how schools and parents can work together in ways that matter to our children.

Mr Patrick Tay suggested for schools to be clearer and more specific in outlining how parents should engage with educators. It is important for individual schools and their parents to develop a shared understanding and tailor the guidelines to serve the school context and the parent community. These are not one-off discussions, but on-going conversations that our schools need to have with our educators and parents, with the support of the PSGs.

Last Saturday, I joined about 200 PSG members from across about 100 schools to go through the GSHP and also other resources to better equip parents in their parenting journey. The parents who were participating were very appreciative of these resources and tools. I think we should give them time to work out with the schools when school reopens next term to work out the protocols for communication between the parents and the schools.

I am always inspired by our PSG members' passion and commitment in supporting our children and the wider community. In many of our schools, PSGs provide mutual support and share information and other resources with fellow parents. This is especially beneficial for parents who are new to the school system or experiencing key milestones in their children's education. They do this typically through parent chat groups and may even step up to moderate conversations to create safe spaces for parents to share their concerns, experiences, tips and encourage one another. It is heartwarming to see such positive peer support in action.

Parents generally appreciate our teachers and respect the boundaries. However, once in a while, we encounter parents who are misaligned in their expectations of our teachers. These parents are also important partners, but as I mentioned earlier regarding our stance on mistreatment, MOE will take a firm stand against any abusive, harassing or disrespectful behaviour. Failure to do so could sap our teachers of a disproportionate amount of their attention, at the expense of other students.

Another crucial element of our educators' support system is the strong partnership with teachers' unions. MOE HR works closely with the unions to support the well-being of our teachers and educators. We hold quarterly dialogues to discuss matters such as capacity building, mental well-being support and grievance handling. The unions provide an additional source of feedback on ground issues and highlight specific cases of teachers and educators who require stronger support.

We thank the teachers' unions for advocating a safe work environment and for their inputs to MOE's Engagement Charter. This new Charter specifically addresses parent-teacher interactions, placing greater emphasis on the expected conduct of parents when interacting with school staff and the importance of mutual courtesy and respect. Through the unions' professional development and counselling support network, our teachers can enhance their skills and competencies in engaging stakeholders, including parents.

I also thank Mr Patrick Tay for his suggestion to set up a national tripartite effort to deal with abuse and harassment of teachers and educators. The education landscape in Singapore comprises diverse institutions from preschool to tertiary level, with various stakeholders and concerns, as well as structures and processes to support their educators and teachers. What works for MOE schools may not work for other educational institutions.

We encourage our unions in the education cluster to continue to partner the respective educational systems and build on their existing structures and processes to enable educators to work in a respectful and harassment-free work environment.

Educators and teachers, whether in public or private institutions, can seek help from the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP). TAFEP has put in place the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Workplace Harassment which serves as a practical guide to prevent and manage harassment at all workplaces. Since 2019, TAFEP has also set up the Workplace Harassment Resource and Recourse Centre which provides support —

Mr Speaker: Minister of State, you have got about half a minute left.

Ms Gan Siow Huang: — which provides support to victims of workplace harassment. These resources are available to all teachers and educators.

Mr Speaker, we deeply value our teachers and educators, and care for their well-being. We understand the challenges they face and the dedication they bring to their roles every day. With support of the school community and partnership with parents and unions, we are committed to uplifting our teachers.

Our aim is to ensure that our teachers and educators remain not just future-ready and relevant, but also resilient in the face of challenges. Together, we can create an environment where our teachers feel respected, supported and empowered to mould the future of our nation.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn."

Mr Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 2(3)(a), I wish to inform hon Members that the Sitting tomorrow will commence at 11.00 am.

Adjourned accordingly at 7.51 pm.