.png)
Making this Home, Truly, Where I Know I Must Be: The Social Residential Homes Act
- Soh Yan Xi , Kevin Chew, and Han Yiheng
- Aug 6, 2025
- 9 min read
In this Explainer, find out...
Why has the Social Residential Homes Act been implemented?
What are the changes implemented under this Act?
What are some of the potential issues that could arise from these changes?
Introduction
We have all seen the ah-ma living alone down the corridor, who seldom sees visitors at her door. We have all noticed the mild-mannered young boy who sports new bruises every time you see him. We have all wondered how we could be of help. Unfortunately, the stories of Singapore’s most vulnerable groups are numerous, and often do not receive the support they need. Fortunately, there exist places where these vulnerable members of our society can seek respite, such as social residential homes.
These are organisations that provide residential care (both long and short-term) to highly vulnerable groups. The Government has long recognised the importance of these Social Residential Homes (SRHs), thus introducing the Social Residential Homes Act (SRHA) 2025. The Act is a catch-all piece of legislation that aims to improve the quality of care offered at these SRHs. This article discusses some of the measures put in place by the Act to achieve said aim, and examines some of its potential shortcomings.
Why Was The SRHA Introduced?
The SRHA was enacted for three key reasons:
To enhance the societal impact of care homes;
To consolidate existing legislation; and
To extend the reach of oversight over care homes.
Enhancing Societal Impact
Though social services for vulnerable groups are plentiful in Singapore, we must recognise that there exists a sizeable portion of the population that slips through the cracks. This segment of society is dependent on social residential homes to provide residential accommodation that facilitates specialised care. For example, there are currently 1500 seniors residing in SRHs supported by the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), with many of them being destitute and lacking familial support.
Social residential homes play a critical role in supporting different groups and their different needs; not only do they serve as homes for the elderly, they also provide accommodation for the disabled, those living in poverty, and, notably, children. Children’s homes support youth in their transition into adulthood through financial assistance and imparting essential life skills such as housekeeping. In turn, it is easy to see the wide and varied role social residential homes play in society, acting as a reliable institution to which vulnerable Singaporeans can turn for support. In understanding this system of social support, the SRHA can be seen as the Government’s attempt to enhance the social good these SRHs can bring to our community.
Consolidating Existing Legislation
Currently, legislation for social residential homes exists not under a single Act, but is scattered across multiple different ones. For example, the Homes for the Aged Act (HFAA) implements care standards for sheltered homes for seniors. At the same time, separate and different care standards can be found in the Children and Young Persons Act for children’s homes, and for welfare homes under the Destitute Persons Act.
In its current state, provisions on standards of care across the different kinds of social residential homes can be confusing, putting an undue burden on MSF when they try to regulate and enforce these standards. The SRHA thus hopes to make care standards consistent across all social residential homes to ensure a baseline quality of care that can be consistently enforced.
Extending the Reach of Government Oversight
Another goal of the SRHA is to extend the reach of the Government in monitoring the care standards of SRHs. Under the new Act, a total of 61 organisations providing residential care in six different categories will be subject to the Government’s oversight and regulations, namely:
Children’s homes;
Children’s disability homes;
Sheltered homes;
Welfare homes;
Adult disability homes; and
Adult disability hostels.
Existing legislation, in contrast, only licenses the first three categories of SRHs, amounting to around 35 organisations. In other words, the SRHA effectively doubles the number of SRHs that come under the ambit of clear regulation and care standards set out by the Government.
Taken together, the SRHA represents a move to clearer regulation, reducing the likelihood of care discrepancies between SRHs, especially in SRHs that previously operated without dedicated oversight. This could allow the Government to take a more proactive stance in preventing neglect or abuse, rather than responding to isolated incidents only after harm has occurred. Notably, however, the Act is not being introduced as a response to any specific cases of abuse or neglect within SRHs.
The Social Residential Homes Act
Objective of the SRHA
Improvements have been made in the social residential sector over the years, and the SRHA aims to formalise these improved practices into a set of laws and guidelines for SRHs to follow.
The Act takes a forward-looking approach, reinforcing the quality of care in SRHs against the background of a rapidly ageing population and shrinking family sizes, which limit the availability of family-based care.
Mechanisms of the SRHA
The SRHA aims to achieve its objectives through a three-pronged approach which encompasses:
Improving care delivery standards;
Enhancing safeguards for safety and well-being; and
Tightening enforcement frameworks to deter errant operators.
Measure 1: Standards to Deliver Care
In order to standardise practices across all SRHs, MSF is developing improved Codes of Practice (COPs) in consultation with operators. Its scope includes governance of the SRH, as well as the management of its premises, residents and incidents. The explicit guidelines aim to concretise standards of care, bringing clarity to both operators and residents on the quality of care they should administer and receive respectively.
Measure 2A: Safeguards for Safety and Well-being — Screening of Staff
Along with polished operational standards, a mandatory suitability assessment has been introduced to ensure that the staff of SRHs are of a verified calibre. Prospective and current employees involved in the management and/or direct contact with residents will be screened by the Ministry. This additional attention to assessing the individuals serving in our SRHs aims to assure residents, SRHs and the Ministry that newly improved standards can be delivered by approved actors.
Measure 2B: Safeguards for Safety and Well-being — Parameters on the Use of Force
On top of closer monitoring of actors, the behaviour of staff will also be further regulated through new parameters set regarding the use of force or mechanical restraints. With these changes, such measures may only be used to prevent residents from harming themselves or others, damaging property, committing offences, breaking SRH rules, or absconding (leaving the facility without authorisation in risky situations).
Unfortunately, from 2020 to 2024, MSF received an average of six reports per year on resident abuse, including that of excessive use of force. Though several were unsubstantiated reports, MSF emphasised a zero-tolerance approach to any form of resident abuse. Hence, the new parameters can guide behaviour and deter potential forms of abuse.
Measure 2C: Safeguards for Safety and Well-being — Appointment of Body to Conduct Checks
To enforce the revised regulations, a Board of Visitors will be appointed to conduct independent checks on SRHs. The Board will visit SRHs regularly, speak to residents, provide feedback to MSF, and share best practices with SRHs.
Measure 2D: Safeguards for Safety and Well-being — Step-in Orders
As a measure of last resort, step-in orders have also been introduced. The step-in order allows MSF to temporarily take over the SRH should it fail to sufficiently care for its residents. The takeover can take several forms, including involving a third party to advise SRHs, temporarily transferring a resident to another SRH, as well as appointing another operator to temporarily take over operations.
Measure 3A: Enforcement Framework to Deter Errant Operators — Actions against Licences
Aside from reinforcing the foundational role of SRHs as safe spaces that promote well-being, appropriate punishments have also been implemented for SRHs that fail to uphold their fundamental duties. These enforcement measures not only create fair consequences for different degrees of mismanagement, but also serve as a wider societal signal to deter such behaviour.
A key instrument introduced is the modification, shortening or suspension of licences for less severe offences. These can range from failing to comply with any applicable COP or conditions in the SRH’s licence. Enforcement measures were previously only limited to revocation of licences, stopping SRHs from operating altogether. The modification gives authorities more flexibility to apply enforcement actions which are less final (see comment). While SRHs still face consequences for their mistakes, SRHs which have only committed minor breaches can continue to operate after rectifying their respective infringements.
Measure 3B: Enforcement Framework to Deter Errant Operators — Criminal Penalties
On the other hand, heavier criminal penalties have also been introduced for more serious violations. For example, operating a SRH without a licence may now warrant a fine of no more than S$100,000, or imprisonment for no more than 2 years, or both. Previously, the same offence would warrant a fine no more than S$5,000, with the same maximum jail term.
These revisions create a stronger deterrent and punitive effect. They emphasise that we as a society value the safety and well-being of the residents, who are vulnerable.
Concerns And Potential Issues
Operational Costs and Funding Support
To begin, an issue arising from the Act is the increased costs imposed on the organisations that run social residential homes. The strict implementation of a licensing regime requires SRHs to comply with government-set standards of care, which will involve a hefty upfront sum for most. Indeed, in a public consultation on the Bill, respondents shared the scope of changes imposed on them by the law would require funding beyond current means to fulfil. Most notably, respondents pointed out that social residential homes see a high staff turnover rate, which brings unique challenges when the SRHA requires staff to be consistently well-trained, indirectly obliging SRHs to constantly sign their staff up for training programmes.
However, a S$33 million Transition Support Package (TSP) was implemented alongside the Act, which can lighten the financial burden of SRHs. SRHs licensed under this Act will be able to receive financial support to upgrade the quality of SRHs. The fund can be used to cushion the costs of compliance, such as the training staff or the new mandatory installation of CCTV systems in selected areas to prevent abuse against residents and staff., While it is not a silver bullet solution to the issue, it does demonstrate a recognition of the financial challenges posed by the Act, and a willingness to address them.
Concern about Operator Autonomy
Next, there is a concern that the step-in powers granted by the Act may undermine the autonomy of SRHs. Research indicates that strict regulations can lead to a compliance-first mindset, creating a risk-averse culture that discourages new approaches. Thus, critics may argue that allowing MSF to temporarily assume control of SRHs or transfer residents may discourage operators from innovating care models or expanding services, out of fear that a misstep may prompt government intervention. Should SRHs feel that their autonomy is restricted in this way, their capacity to offer specialised services to vulnerable individuals may be inadvertently limited.
To address this, MSF stated that these step-in powers would only be exercised when less intrusive measures have failed. Further, the type of regulatory action taken against an errant operator would be calibrated based on factors such as the degree of harm caused and whether it was a repeat breach. This means that a less severe breach would warrant a correspondingly less drastic measure. As another safeguard, the use of step-in powers would cease once the operations of the affected SRH have stabilised, and the residents’ safety and well-being are secured.
Risk of Deterring Participation
Another worry is that the enhanced criminal penalties for errant operators may unintentionally deter participation in the residential care sector. Member of Parliament Melvin Yong expressed concern that the 20-fold increase in the maximum fine for unauthorised operation of a SRH may be excessive. If operators and staff are discouraged from joining the sector, the availability of care services for those in need may be compromised.
In response, MSF clarified that the penalties under the Act are in keeping with comparable offences under the Healthcare Services Act (which licenses the provision of nursing home services). Heavy penalties are necessary to uphold high standards of care in SRHs and protect vulnerable residents, it maintained. Additionally, the Ministry emphasised its role in working closely with SRHs to ensure that standards of care are met, reassuring SRHs that it would “not be punitive from the outset”.
Conclusion
Perhaps you have come across the senior who has been estranged from her family, who does not have a place to call home. Or the person with a disability, who struggles to navigate a world not always accommodating to his needs. For society’s most vulnerable, the SRHA represents a crucial step. Many residents lack the means or family support to live on their own, making them particularly dependent on social residential homes for shelter, community and comfort. In pairing regulation with capacity-building, the new legislation will hopefully guarantee that SRHs can meet necessarily high standards of care, ensuring the safety and welfare of these residents.
Taking a broader view, the SRHA complements existing policies that protect and empower vulnerable groups. It aligns with strategies set out in the Age Well SG initiative and the Enabling Masterplan 2030 of creating caring, inclusive environments for seniors and persons with disabilities., Looking forward, shrinking family sizes and an ageing population likely mean growing demand for residential care services. To safeguard against increased financial and manpower burdens, there is opportunity for more collaboration between SRHs and the Government in areas of innovation and capacity-building. In this way, we can make Singapore, truly, a Home for all.
This Policy Explainer was written by members of MAJU. MAJU is a ground-up, fully youth-led organisation dedicated to empowering Singaporean youths in policy discourse and co-creation.
By promoting constructive dialogue and serving as a bridge between youths and the Government, we hope to drive the keMAJUan (progress!) of Singapore.
The citations to our Policy Explainers can be found in the PDF appended to this webpage.
Comments