1 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for Manpower whether more graduated or proportional arrangements for foreign manpower and levy thresholds can be considered for hawkers and small food and beverage operators to meet their essential kitchen and service staffing needs while still ensuring fair wages and protections for all workers.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, we recognise the manpower challenges faced by small food and beverage (F&B) operators, including our hawkers, given our ageing demographic and rising local aspirations.
As a unique combination of food, space and community, hawker centres are a microcosm of Singapore’s multicultural society. To preserve the local identity of our hawker culture and heritage, the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) only allows Singaporean Citizens and Permanent Residents to be stallholders at our hawker centres. Stallholders can also hire eligible Long-Term Visit Pass and Long-Term Visit Pass-Plus holders, who are already in Singapore and can contribute to our economy.
Licensed food shops, such as restaurants, can hire foreign workers, subject to the services foreign worker levy rates and quota of two locals to one foreign worker. To address the manpower needs of micro enterprises, we allow those with only one local worker to hire their first Work Permit Holder.
Differentiating levies and quotas further to favour smaller operators could incentivise the larger operators to break up into smaller entities to hire more foreign workers. This could result in a large increase in the number of foreign workers, which would not be sustainable given our limited infrastructural and social carrying capacity.
I think if the Member has been reading The Straits Times, she would probably have noticed that there was an opinion piece on 24 February, Tuesday, last week, written by Assoc Prof Lee Kuan-Huei. She is the Chief Research Officer of the Singapore Productivity Centre. In that article, I think there was quite a good data-based opinion of the current state of play in the F&B sector.
If I may just share some of the insights from that particular opinion piece. She said that there is a structural problem in the way F&B operators here still operate. One of the key thing is that productivity gains have lagged behind activity growth. That means that the F&B operators are putting more effort and resources into their operations without the proportionate economic gains. And her suggestion is that productivity and not headcount must be the central lens through which productivity must be assessed and for which business viability has to be looked at.
So, instead of just looking at raising headcounts, the Government has schemes to support small F&B companies. These include the FoodX programme, which supports the outsourcing of labour-intensive food preparation to central kitchens to improve operational efficiency; as well as the F&B Process Optimisation Programme, which supports technological adoption and process redesign. Companies may also tap on broader schemes such as the Productivity Solutions Grant to support transformation efforts to raise productivity.
We will continue to review the foreign manpower policies for hawkers and small F&B companies, together with relevant agencies, including MSE.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Tan.
\tMs Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Senior Minister of State for his comprehensive reply. I am also very happy to hear that the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) will continue to review that. I agree with the writer that structurally, there are some challenges, and productivity is important. But here, we are looking at the hawkers and the single F&B operators. They do not have that advantage of scale to be able to take advantage of the Dependency Ratio Ceiling (DRC) tier. Therefore, even if they hired just one additional worker, it brings them up to the higher DRC level, if they are even eligible to hire that.
From the way hawkers and these small, single F&Bs operate, honestly, they are working 12 to 14 hours, and many of the owner operators are working those hours. My residents are some of them – that is the reason why I am asking this question. I do hope the Ministry will look at the data of companies, the single operators and hawkers, that are pushed into this higher tier or end up not even deciding to carry on with their business because it is just getting too hard.
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I thank the Member for her comments and questions. I agree with her that it is a challenge for smaller scale operators. But this goes beyond just giving more headcount. It fundamentally revolves around a few key issues. One is the operating model itself, whether it is sustainable. Secondly, it is a broader conversation beyond policy, which is what Singaporeans expect of the food operators when it comes to the authenticity of the of the recipe, the way it is prepared.
It is a question that goes beyond policy, because Singaporeans have certain expectations about the quality of the food from the hawkers, the authenticity of the recipe and whether it still tastes like the good old days that they are used to.
In essence, actually, MOM is agnostic to this. If it makes sense for us to give them more headcount just to produce the food at a certain productivity level and maybe even quantity and efficiency, that is something we are prepared to consider. But that will mean that the authenticity of the recipe could be impacted – that hawkers are selling a particular ethnic dish that is now not even cooked by the actual ethnicity, for example. You see this a lot in food courts, where your typical traditional dish is cooked by a foreign worker. And if that is something that the broader Singaporean public can accept, that is conversation we should have and then decide how best to move forward on this.
And in the end, smaller operators may really also have to rethink their business model and see how they can be more productive so that they are not going just by headcount. See how they can leverage on the rest of the resources the Government has put forth – Productivity Solutions Grant, working with central kitchen, for example – so that some of the backend operations that are very labour-intensive can be outsourced, while they focus on actually preparing the meals, making sure that it is authentic.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore's Vaccine Safety and Efficacy Validation Process, and Submission for Moderna’s mRNA Influenza Vaccine","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) has received a recent submission for Moderna’s mRNA influenza vaccine; and (b) to what extent Singapore’s safety and efficacy validation process remains independent of the US and European standards.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health): Sir, the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) has not received any regulatory submission for Moderna’s mRNA seasonal influenza vaccine.
HSA always exercises its regulatory authority independently. That said, in the healthcare regulatory world, there are many collaborations and partnerships. Highly regarded regulatory bodies become references for others, just as Singapore is a reference for others and we also reference other highly reputable jurisdictions.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. The recent United States (US) Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) hesitation over Moderna’s mRNA flu vaccine suggests that regulators around the world can have differing views on assessments. So, can the Senior Minister of State explain how HSA ensures its decisions are not simply aligned to some of these US or United Kingdom (UK) regulators? This matters because Singaporeans must have confidence that approvals are based on what is best and safest for our population.
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, as I said in my reply, HSA takes an independent review of all submissions for regulatory approval. We have our methodology that is based on science done by a panel of experts who are well versed in this area. So, we look at comprehensive data that is being submitted by any manufacturer who seeks to license their products here, and this includes parameters looking at quality safety efficacy, including data from Phase 3 randomised controlled trials, where we will also assess the methodology and whether the sample size is adequate for the type of products that are seeking to be registered.
We also look at whether there are adequate follow-up periods after the product has hit the market, typically at least more than six months, to make sure that in the post-launch period the product has not surfaced any unknown side effects that were previously not detected in the randomised controlled trial.
And of course, the manufacturer also must show evidence of compliance with good manufacturing practice (GMP) standards, so that things like detailed manufacturing processes, quality control data with testing methods and acceptance criteria, will allow us to assess whether every batch of product that comes through this manufacturer has a consistency that meets quality standards. And also, we look at the stability data demonstrating that any vaccine or any medical product maintains effectiveness and safety throughout its storage period.
So, I just want to assure the Member that we have a robust system and we will continue to do so.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Governance of Student Care Centres and Minimising Disruptions in Event of Abrupt Centre Closures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Government currently audits the financial viability and operational sustainability of Student Care Centre (SCC) operators; (b) if so, how are such audits conducted; and (c) whether the Government intends to improve its governance processes over SCCs to avoid future abrupt closures, to reduce the risk of disruptions to children, parents, and staff.
4 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Minister for Education in relation to the interim plan for the Ministry’s schools and teachers to continue student care centre operations following the abrupt closure of private student care centre operator in February 2026, how does the Government plan to recognise these extra efforts and ensure that the Ministry’s teachers are not further overworked.
5 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Minister for Education (a) what regulatory safeguards are in place to ensure continuity of student care centres when they cease operations abruptly; (b) whether there are framework level requirements on financial governance, contingency planning and parent fee protection; and (c) how the Ministry assesses operator resilience to minimise disruption to students, parents and staff.
6 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Minister for Education in relation to the abrupt closure of Little Professors student care centres, how the Government plans to assist in the recovery of salary payments due to staff and the recovery of GIRO payments unfairly deducted from parents.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Education (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, my response will address Question No 3 through to Question No 6 on today's Order Paper.
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, my answer will also address related oral or written questions filed for subsequent Sittings on the recent issues with Little Professors Learning Centre Pte Ltd (LPLC), a former operator of Student Care Centres (SCCs) and Kindergarten Care (KCare) centres in our schools.
Sir, the Ministry of Education (MOE) was first alerted to the issues at LPLC centres in February this year. Our first priority was to minimise the disruption to students and their families, and to ensure that students enrolled in the LPLC-operated SCCs and KCare centres continued to receive care after school.
Our schools have stepped in to provide interim after-school support. School staff have been deployed on a rotational basis to bridge the gap since the incident first happened. Over the past three weeks, schools have engaged relief manpower, including retired school staff, flexi-adjunct teachers and external instructors, to fill the staffing needs and to reduce the need for continued deployment of school staff. Parent support groups in some schools have also stepped in to provide additional support. MOE headquarters (HQ) officers have been providing onsite assistance and have helped to relieve the administrative load on schools.
All affected schools have been able to continue providing after-school care for students. I would like to express my deep gratitude to all who have stepped in to help. I know that the children and their families are also appreciative of the care and concern. School staff who have put in additional contributions during this interim period will be recognised.
MOE has started sourcing for new SCC and KCare operators to provide after-school care for the students in the affected schools. We want the new operators to start as soon as possible.
MOE is also concerned about former LPLC staff who have been adversely affected. We are working with the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and the Education Services Union, who are supporting affected workers with short-term financial relief, job referrals and career guidance through NTUC’s Employment and Employability Institute (e2i). MOE and schools have also been able to employ and pay former LPLC staff in their original centres if they are keen to do so, until a permanent operator is appointed. This will provide some financial stability for these affected staff in the interim, while they continue to care for our students.
Affected LPLC staff have also been advised to reach out directly to the Ministry of Manpower, the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management or the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board to file claims for unpaid salaries and CPF contributions.
With reference to the unauthorised General Interbank Recurring Order (GIRO) deductions, MOE has filed a police report when these were reported to schools in February. We had at that point also advised affected parents to cancel their GIRO arrangements immediately and to consider filing a claim with the Small Claims Tribunal. As police investigations are ongoing, I am not able to comment further on this issue. Pending the outcomes of police investigations, we will work with relevant agencies to see how we can further support parents.
Members have asked about our selection and monitoring mechanisms for SCC and KCare operators.
As part of the selection process, operators have to demonstrate adequate financial standing before they are considered. After they are appointed, MOE and schools maintain oversight over operators and monitor their performance in terms of how well they are providing the SCC and KCare services. These monitoring processes are reviewed regularly so that we can continue to improve our safeguards.
We also value parents’ direct feedback about our SCC and KCare centres so that issues can be addressed in a timely fashion. Today, parents can provide feedback to SCC and KCare staff, to the schools, and directly to MOE. In 2025, MOE directly received a total of 212 emails and phone calls providing feedback on SCCs and KCare centres. We reviewed all of them and followed up with the schools and operators when needed.
Before this incident with LPLC, MOE has not had cause to terminate the services of any school-based SCC and KCare operator.
Nevertheless, we do recognise that there is room for improvement within the sector to provide better services, to strengthen the resilience of operators and to better monitor the service provision. We are further reviewing our processes for selecting and monitoring SCC and KCare operators.
Mr Speaker: Mr Loh.
\t \tMr Shawn Loh (Jalan Besar): Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, I declare that I am the advisor to the Education Services Union that looks after the affected teachers. Second, I declare that I am the advisor to the Singapore Teachers Union that looks after the teachers who stepped in to help. And third, I declare that Hong Wen school, which is one of the affected schools, is in my constituency. And to that end, I asked not one, not two, but three Parliamentary Questions (PQs) on the matter.
When I visited Hong Wen school the day after the closure, I was glad to see the parents' support group and the teachers coming in to make sure the kids had the continuity of care. They told me that the incident was regrettable, but possibly preventable. So, my two supplementary questions, Mr Speaker, are about how we can prevent these incidents from happening again.
First on MOE's due diligence, both before an operator is appointed and during the operations. What levels of safeguards can we expect MOE to implement to ensure that operators with financial standing are appointed? And during operations, that they continue to be in good financial standing, so that we are assured of the sustainability of the operations. This is conceptually no different from how other Government procurement entities, such as those in the built environment sector, look at the largest contractors and vendors of the Government.
The second and final question is on MOE's whistle-blowing policies. Because parents in our Whampoa and Boon Keng estates told me that they had given feedback about the deteriorating quality of the SCC last year. So, when MOE said that they only found out about it in February this year, the parents told me that this did not gel with the feedback they had given. Whistle-blowing allows us to have this early signal, so I hope that MOE could also consider how we could look at early signals to avoid a situation where MOE and parents and children and staff are caught off guard in the future.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank Mr Loh for his questions and for his efforts in his capacity, both in that school that he mentioned, as well as with the unions.
On his first question about due diligence, the levels of safeguards associated with the financial standing of the operator – these are assessed at the point of the application, the tender, when the operator submits a tender to have the licence to operate the centre at the schools. We do indeed have a series of items that we look at, including the capitalisation of the company, the financial reserves, the depth of their governance and so forth.
He is asking then about whether we have means to do so during the course of the operations. Since January 2025, all the contracts that have been awarded require then a yearly submission of audited financial statements. And so then, we continue to have oversight of this process.
It is an evolving series of mechanisms. We await the investigations as to what happened in this incident and we will see whether there are lessons learnt that will inform us about whether we need to put in further mechanisms, going forward.
On whistle-blowing, indeed, we do have a variety of channels. As I have explained, the parents can feedback directly to the operator, to the schools and to MOE HQ. We went back and looked at the complaints or feedback – not all of them were complaints – about Little Professors over the last year. And there were a variety of things. Indeed, some of the feedback was about, for example, the quality of food, another child's behaviour to a parent's child, reports on services or the teachers, and we also had a couple of reports from the teachers as employees.
There was nothing untoward in the feedback that we have received from Little Professors and nothing different from what we had seen across other operators.
We did indeed have a serious incident in February of this year, and as soon as that information was made available to MOE, we started to take action. And we had as our first priority, been stepping in to provide care for the children, and then subsequently, when there were some issues to do with the finances highlighted, we have made a police report and that matter is under investigation.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Hamid Razak.
\tDr Hamid Razak (West Coast-Jurong West): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. One of the affected schools, Westwood Primary, is also in my constituency. I want to thank the staff and the volunteers for stepping up in this uncertain period.
I ask these questions in the spirit of improving the systemic resilience of the sector, the first one being: will the Ministry include a review of its current operators and consider a strategic partnership to have a whitelist of operators that could step in if one ceases to operate, so that we do not have to activate our teachers, who already have increased workload? That is the first one.
The second one alludes to the same early warning trigger system that hon Member Shawn Loh mentioned earlier: whether we can have a broader view of some of these triggers which could include both operational and financial aspects? For example, if a centre rapidly expands across the island, or if we see that staff are being laid off, on top of just the routine reporting that these centres currently do.
And thirdly, are there ways to also ensure that parents' fees are also safeguarded? Most of the parents who came to see me in my Meet-the-People Session were truly worried about recovery of their deposits. Could we weave in, perhaps one of the factors could be ring-fencing parents' fees or deposits in a client's account or by way of some form of an insurance that the providers could purchase to protect parents' deposits? These are my supplementary questions.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank Dr Hamid Razak for his suggestions. I think they are all good suggestions.
We are reviewing, not just this incident, but the sector as a whole and we do want to improve. We want to improve the resilience of the operators within the sector. We want to improve the service provision for our students and we want to improve parents' confidence in the operators and the care that their children are receiving.
The Member had made a couple of suggestions. The first, in terms of systemic resilience, looking at some form of whitelist or strategic partnership with an operator or operators. It is something worth considering. And the idea that perhaps, we might develop capability in partnership with an operator so that there is a systemic resilience, not just an operator resilience, should another incident occur, whether we would have the capability then to rely on such an operator to step in, and not only on the MOE staff and the parent support groups, and all the other people who helped.
I would like to take this opportunity to once again appreciate very much that we did have so many people who were able and willing to help and did so very effectively, so that there was no interruption in the care that our children had.
He suggested another set of ideas about operational and financial monitoring of the operators to pick up in advance, if such a thing occurs. Actually, in general, MOE and the schools work very closely with the operators. We have ongoing discussions, we know the staff very well, we integrate on some programmes and services. There have been issues over the years that we have had to deal with. Some operators, maybe staff are sick or face staff shortage, or perhaps the business issues that we have to think about. For most of the operators, we actually have a fairly close relationship, and hence, we have not had an anxiety about whether we were not aware about what was happening within the operator. But I take his point that perhaps, we need a mechanism to give us systemic confidence that we have sight into the finances and operations, such that we would have an early warning, if there was a resilience issue of a given operator.
We are studying the sector and we will see if we can find ways to introduce such mechanisms, including, for example, how an operator manages their staff; which I think is something that we have to take very seriously.
His third suggestion about the parents' fees, indeed, that is an anxiety that many parents will have about the deposits that they have paid. The double GIRO deductions that were reported were indeed returned. The double GIRO deductions that were reported to MOE before February this year, that happened last year, were indeed returned to the parents. And so, it is the later round of double deductions which required a police report. And then now, for many parents, there is the issue of the deposits that they have paid, which they have not been able to claim back yet. The matter is still under investigation and we will see how best we can assist those parents, and then see what is the appropriate mechanism going forward to restore parents' confidence in the operators in this space.
\tMr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. I know you have filed a PQ on this. Yes, go ahead.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker. Sir, like many others, I have residents who have been affected by this in my constituency. My question has to do with the pursuit of recourse by many of these. I understand that Senior Minister of State mentioned that the way that they should proceed is by going to the Small Claims Tribunal. But given how collective the nature of those who were affected by this are, I wonder if there is some manner in which the Government will assist with coordinating this process of claims, rather than have individuals try to seek out Small Claims Tribunal, especially for parents who are not well-versed in matters of the law.
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, the situation is still developing and investigations are ongoing. We will find ways to assist the affected families and parents.
Mr Speaker: Last supplementary question, Dr Wan Rizal.
\tDr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for sharing on the efforts done by MOE and working together with the unions and e2i to support both the teachers and of course, the parents in this process too.
I have also raised the concern whereby the teachers are now given extra load to do interim supervisory duties. How will MOE ensure that such stopgap measures do not become normalised or prolonged, such that it affects their workload? And how can we make sure that those teachers who are currently on those workloads are recognised formally and they can be added into the additional responsibilities?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank Dr Wan Rizal for his questions. I express my deep appreciation for the teachers who have indeed stepped in to care for the students. We do recognise that this is in addition to their workload and that will be recognised by the schools as well. The operational way in which we relieve that workload will vary from site to site. The principals and the site conditions of, for example, the Little Professor staff who have chosen to stay on, or external staff who have been able to come in – means that it is not exactly the same from site to site. So, exactly what the teachers have to do and the intensity of the workload will vary. So, we have to take an operational approach, but our intent is indeed for the teachers then to focus on their primary duties and where possible for us then, to relieve them of these duties.
MOE HQ staff have stepped in to relieve administrative burdens. I have given the example of parent support groups that have volunteered to assist and we have employed the existing former Little Professor staff, as well as external staff to then come in, in the interim, while we are pending the operator to be appointed.
To ensure that this does not ever happen again, well, those are the issues that we have talked about in the previous supplementary questions: that we are reviewing the sector and we will look to see whether we have mechanisms that we can detect earlier, respond faster and perhaps, have better resilience across the system.
But I think the fact that we had such an incident for the first time, a student care operator collapsing in this way, if you like, unable to provide services, and yet across all eight schools, we had a continuity of care and a continuity of service provision – I think it is a testament to the professionalism and capability of our education staff and the entire ecosystem of stakeholders that are involved. And I once again would very much like to thank them for that.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Barrier-free Access on Public Footpaths for Mobility Scooters and Motorised Wheelchairs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Acting Minister for Transport what measures are being taken to ensure all public footpaths, including roadside footpaths in private estates, provide barrier-free access for mobility scooters and motorised wheelchairs so that users are not forced onto roads, risking both safety and prosecution under the Active Mobility Act 2017.
\tThe Minister of State for Transport (Mr Baey Yam Keng) (for the Acting Minister for Transport): Public paths are designed to be free from encumbrances to ensure a barrier-free passage. Since 2018, all new standalone footpaths are also required to have a minimum clear width of 1.8 metres, while those adjacent to cycling paths must be at least 1.5 metres. When rejuvenating old footpaths, we will widen them to these standards, unless there are site constraints, such as the lack of roadside space.
The Land Transport Authority (LTA) also takes in residents' feedback when planning for footpath widening within private estates, which is often undertaken in conjunction with other programmes, such as drainage or estate improvements.
If riders need to use the road briefly to bypass obstructions or access adjoining paths, enforcement authorities will exercise discretion. We would also like to remind device users and motorists to slow down at residential estates and exercise greater caution during such instances.
\tMr Speaker: We are almost out of time, but Mr Tan, I will allow you to ask your clarification in a very concise manner.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just have one supplementary question.
I would like to ask whether the Minister of State can advise on the timeline for a private estate, which has not been upgraded, for example. When will the current footpaths, which are currently blocked or not accessible for Personal Mobility Aids (PMAs), when does the Government expect that these footpaths can be modified for use, without the PMAs having to use the road?
\tMr Baey Yam Keng: As mentioned earlier, such path widening work is usually taken in conjunction with other estate improvement works, for example, drainage or estate improvements and these are not entirely within LTA's jurisdiction.
We really have to bear in mind the constraints in private estates, because you have trees, utilities and it is not so straightforward as in other places. We do take a calibrated approach, looking at the volume of users – whether motorists on the roads or pedestrians and riders on the footpaths. So, therefore, we seek Member's and public's understanding that we will do it in a way that is realistic and practical.
\t
Mr Speaker: Order. End of question time. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Order of the Day.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Estimates of Expenditure for the Financial Year 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2027","subTitle":"Committee of Supply – Paper Cmd 4 of 2026","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [3rd Allotted Day]. (proc text)]
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply – Head R (Ministry of Law)","subTitle":"A united, safe and resilient nation in a changing world","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Head R (Cont) — (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [27 February 2026], (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head R of the Estimates be reduced by $100.\" – [Mr Vikram Nair]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
The Chairman: Minister Edwin Tong.
The Minister for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Mr Chairman, Sir, I thank the various Members who spoke last week, in particular, for each of their support of the Ministry of Law's (MinLaw's) work.
Sir, let me begin with history because context matters.
In 1826, the Second Charter of Justice formally established the Court of Judicature of Singapore, at that time, a fledgling colonial legal order in a trading post that had barely found its footing. The law then served a different purpose, a different master and in a very different age.
Nearly two centuries on, what Singapore has built has been nothing short of remarkable. We now rank among the top legal and intellectual property (IP) systems in the world. Our Courts and dispute resolution institutions, like the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, Singapore International Mediation Centre and Singapore International Commercial Court, are globally recognised for excellence.
Whilst our legal beginnings were inherited, we have since moulded and contextualised the rule of law to serve our nation and our people. This has been the Singapore story of progress. However, none of this happened by accident. Generations of lawyers, judges, academics and policy-makers understood that a rules-based society is the bedrock upon which everything else – commerce, safety and liberty – is built.
Sir, in our bicentennial year, this year, since the Second Charter of Justice, we are facing significant disruptive forces: geopolitical tensions, which escalated just over the weekend, revolutionary technologies, climate risk and pressures on the social fabric. We will therefore have to redouble efforts to keep our laws updated and relevant and also be bold and open to embracing changes. MinLaw will continue to press on with reform and progress in our legal policies.
In my speech this morning, I will set out our overarching vision, the priority areas that we will focus on as well as outline some of the key challenges that we will have to confront.
Let me start with the continued development of our legal industry, which remains a priority.
We will continue our work to build Singapore as a legal and professional services hub. These are powerful growth engines, providing opportunities, driving economic expansion and job creation. In order to achieve this, Singapore must constantly refresh its legal frameworks in an ever-changing and fast-evolving world, and also do it in a timely manner.
We will therefore be reviewing key legislation with a view to updating them to ensure that our laws stay fit for purpose. This will include, this year, reforms in arbitration, corporate insolvency and IP.
Beyond reviewing legislation, we will also identify opportunities in emerging areas. This includes supporting the green transition, the digital economy and major regional infrastructure projects, as well as sports and entertainment dispute resolution that Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh mentioned.
Beyond domestic reforms, Singapore will continue to contribute to international thought leadership. By being present in the global legal mindshare, we ensure that we will not merely be price-takers but we will actively play a role in shaping the law.
The Singapore Convention on Mediation bears our name, our country’s name – a testament to our involvement in shaping international dispute resolution. Maxwell Chambers continues to serve as a leading dispute resolution complex, hosting the highest concentration of international dispute resolution institutions worldwide.
This year, we welcome three more institutions to Singapore: first, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID); second, the Shanghai International Arbitration Centre; and third, the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration.
Besides being the first office outside its Washington DC headquarters, ICSID will join the four other World Bank Group organisations already based in Singapore, making Singapore the first country in the world to host local offices for all five World Bank organisations.
Indeed, Singaporeans also contribute to leadership on the international stage, including Mr Daren Tang and Ambassador Rena Lee, as mentioned by Mr Christopher de Souza.
Our international engagement also extends to strengthening legal cooperation frameworks with our partners, ensuring that as commerce and cross-border activity grow, the rule of law keeps pace.
One example is extradition treaties.
To Ms Sylvia Lim’s query on the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Treaty on Extradition (AET), the AET requires at least six ASEAN members states to complete their respective domestic procedures and notify the ASEAN Secretary-General that they are ready to bring the AET into effect. The Government will also similarly ratify the AET once we have completed our own internal procedures. On the risks to Singaporeans, there are robust legal safeguards in the AET, which set out the circumstances where extradition will not be granted. One example is if the request is made to prosecute the fugitive based on his race, religion, nationality or political opinions.
Second, we must continue to cultivate a strong legal profession. This is the backbone of our legal progress. And we want Singapore to remain a jurisdiction where the finest legal minds choose to practise here and where homegrown talent is given every opportunity to flourish and remain at the core of our profession. I encourage our law firms to expand their horizons, think about internationalising their practices. Given our market, Singapore’s size, we must build our legal ecosystem with the broader Asia and ASEAN in context.
And the case for doing so is compelling. In ASEAN alone, it is set as a bloc to become the fourth largest economy by 2030, if not sooner. And foreign direct investments into ASEAN have been steadily rising. So, I believe our firms are well-primed to capture these opportunities.
At the same time, we recognise the value that foreign law firms and lawyers bring to our industry and the wider economy. Ms Cassandra Lee mentioned balancing between open competitiveness and preserving a Singapore core. We agree, and the two can co-exist.
Singapore, in fact, has gradually liberalised the legal sector since the 1990s, and we have not changed our posture. Foreign firms have more than doubled and foreign lawyers have more than quadrupled since the year 2000.
They complement our Singapore lawyers, offering advice and expertise on international and foreign law, which we need as a global business hub. This strengthens Singapore’s value proposition. Indeed, over the same period of time, since the year 2000, our legal services exports have gone up eight-fold, which shows that when we bring it together – foreign lawyers, Singapore practitioners at the core – we can extract value.
We regularly review our frameworks to remain attractive to foreign law firms and lawyers. To Ms Lee’s query, we have studied the recommendations by the Committee to Review the Regulatory Framework for Law Practices and Collaborations and gathered feedback from a public consultation and our industry engagements, and we will share our decision on the Committee’s Report shortly.
Third, Sir, we will redouble efforts to develop the individual lawyer. The strength of any legal system and indeed, of our legal profession, lies ultimately in the strength of our people. We will therefore expand education and competency frameworks, not just in technical skills but in civil law, technology literacy and cross-border practice, so that every Singapore lawyer can serve their clients and their community with confidence and competence.
This also means confronting the sustainability of legal practice, issues which Ms Kuah Boon Theng, Mr Vikram Nair and Ms Cassandra Lee spoke on.
Let me start by saying that attrition has remained stable, so far. And in fact, the number of Singapore lawyers in practice grew 26% over the past decade. So, over the last 10 years, the number of lawyers in practice grew 26%. Nonetheless, I agree with the observations made by the hon Members. We must continue to explore ways to alleviate pressures on our lawyers in light of the changing environment.
There is, however, no magic bullet. As Ms Kuah has noted, the challenges are multi-faceted. It will require collective effort, including law firms, which will set the conditions for growth, exposure and mentorship for lawyers, but also lawyers themselves, each of them, who can be stewards of their own careers.
We will have to think collectively and carefully about embracing technology to automate mundane tasks, equipping lawyers with relevant 21st century skills, widening the industry ecosystem, so that lawyers can pursue diverse interests and strengths, and find meaning, purpose and value in the profession that they practise in. Senior Minister of State Murali Pillai will share our efforts on education and the adoption of legaltech.
Sir, what I have found during my time in practice was that while the hours may be long and the pressure intense, a collaborative workplace culture helps in longevity, helps in building the ecosystem and the environment in which each lawyer practises. The Law Society and the Singapore Academy of Law have introduced mentorship programmes and other initiatives to help promote sustainability. The Chief Justice and I will oversee a Committee on the Future of the Legal Profession to consider and tackle these and other pertinent issues that may arise. The Committee will explore these matters, from the holistic perspective of ensuring the long-term sustainability of our legal sector.
In parallel, the Government will also continue to support in-house counsel, who are integral to Singapore’s legal ecosystem and economic competitiveness. As Mr Vikram Nair noted, lawyers joining in-house legal teams are not a loss. Multinational companies (MNCs) present in Singapore have grown to over 7,000 present in Singapore today, and between 2015 and 2024, the number of Singapore-qualified in-house counsel more than doubled.
So, in that period of time, while our industry has remained stable, in fact, with a 26% increase, the number of in-house counsel has more than doubled over the last 10 years. It reflects growth in not just the number of lawyers in practice or in in-house counsel roles but the growth of MNCs in Singapore, which supports the economy, in turn requiring in-house counsel legal support. In-house counsel help companies navigate regulatory landscapes and invest with confidence in Singapore.
Next, Sir, let me turn to enhancing access to justice, ensuring that those who are most vulnerable and most in need can still access our first-class legal system.
Sir, in the preceding years, we have streamlined laws and processes to meet our society’s evolving needs. For example, we have shifted away from the adversarial approach in family proceedings, addressing non-compliance with maintenance orders. We have simplified enforcement of civil claims. We have strengthened the management of community disputes through mandatory mediation and we support those with special needs in our criminal justice system.
We have also made a firm commitment to Government legal aid through the Legal Aid Bureau and the setting up of the Public Defender’s Office. We have continued to work with the legal fraternity and partners like Pro Bono SG to deliver legal aid and expand outreach and assistance through schemes like the Community Law Centres. We have introduced technology, such as LawGoWhere, to bring legal services closer to Singaporeans and help them to navigate the process and empower and enable self-help.
This year, Sir, we will make another shift to expand civil legal aid coverage.
Today, civil legal aid is available to the bottom 25th percentile of households with a per capita household income (PCHI) of $1,050. We will raise the means-test criteria to a PCHI of $1,650. This would cover more households, allowing them to benefit from legal advice in the appropriate cases.
When we did a survey, we found that between the previous threshold of $1,050 and $1,650, about half of civil litigants in this expanded income range remain unrepresented. Some may have done so by choice, but after we put this in place, we will allow them to now avail themselves of legal aid, should that become necessary. This will extend more legal aid to more Singaporeans. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric will share more details on these efforts.
Next, I turn to optimising our state assets and I thank Mr de Souza for recognising our efforts over the years to unlock underutilised spaces for social and community good, place-making, such as providing arts spaces for practitioners and sports and recreational facilities.
But this is no easy undertaking. The Singapore Land Authority (SLA) manages a substantial portfolio of around 2,600 state properties and 11,000 hectares of state land – the equivalent of some 15,000 football fields. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric will share how SLA continues to support our economic and social needs.
At this juncture, let me turn to address Ms Sylvia Lim's cut on the appointment of the Attorney-General (AG). Ms Lim's cut was originally filed to the Prime Minister's Office. It was redirected to MinLaw, as I will respond on behalf of the Prime Minister.
Sir, Mr Lucien Wong has served as AG since January 2017. As Ms Lim noted, Mr Wong has had a distinguished legal career. Prior to his appointment, he grew and led Singapore's largest law firm and was widely regarded as the country's top corporate lawyer over many years, with an international standing. In fact, I would say that his reputation stands as amongst the best in the world.
As AG, Mr Wong has made major contributions across almost every area of law. Under his leadership, the AGC has advised the Government on complex legal and constitutional matters; prosecuted criminal offences fairly and firmly; and ensured that legislation introduced in Parliament is clear, sound and fit for Singapore's purposes. His experience and steady hand have also been especially valuable to Singapore in sensitive international matters, some of which are presently ongoing. In January this year, Mr Wong's term was renewed for three years.
Ms Lim, in her speech, has described the appointment process for the AG as \"thin\", if I heard her correctly. But I would have to disagree and would instead characterise it quite differently.
Sir, the appointment of the AG, whether the initial appointment or any subsequent renewal, is made in accordance with the Constitution. There is a clear, deliberate and very structured process of appointment, with the appropriate checks and balances.
Let me explain. In the appointment of an AG, Article 35 of the Constitution provides that the Prime Minister must first consult the Chief Justice and the Chairman of the Public Service Commission (PSC) before tendering his advice as to the appointment to the President. After receiving that advice, the President in turn consults the Council of Presidential Advisers (CPA) and makes an independent assessment of the appointment.
Sir, this is not a perfunctory process; nor is it \"thin\" by any measure. It involves consultation with the head of the Judiciary, the leadership of the PSC and the elected President exercising his constitutional role, in consultation with the CPA, before the AG is either appointed or renewed. This process reflects a careful and considered balance between executive responsibility and institutional safeguards.
Ms Lim then goes on to suggest that there should be public disclosure of these deliberations.
Sir, I do not think that would be wise.
First, these are matters for Chairman PSC and the CPA to assess independently and take a considered view of. The CPA, for instance, does not publish its advice to the President, nor is the Government privy to its deliberations.
Second, confidential deliberations also serve an important function when it comes to making such appointments.
If you put it out publicly, you put the candidates out for public debate. Even the best of candidates will have some detractors; a small minority, but there will be some. Suitable candidates may well then be deterred from even being considered if discussions as to their suitability and perhaps their rejection were to be made publicly.
The consultation process also requires candour and frank assessment. Turning it into a public debate risks politicising an office that must remain scrupulously non-partisan.
It is easy to say, let us have more information, let us have more public debate, public discourse and deliberations. But we have seen other countries using such methods in other systems. And the question we have to ask ourselves is, are they better?
Singapore's legal system, our corruption levels, our adherence to the rule of law has consistently been marked internationally very well and I think we want to continue with this.
In some jurisdictions, the AGs are elected office holders, but Singapore has had a different model since our Independence. Our AG is not a politician. He is appointed based on professional excellence, integrity and judgement. The safeguards, however, lie in the constitutional requirements and qualifications required, the consultative process that I have just outlined and ultimately, in the performance and the conduct of the office.
Ms Lim also says that there are many qualified persons for the position. That may be so, if one considers only the basic eligibility criteria. However, the selection of an AG is not simply about meeting the basic criteria. It requires a careful assessment of who is best suited to discharge the heavy and very important responsibilities of the office. We want the best, not just those who might qualify.
What then does the Government look for in an AG? There are several considerations.
As I said, the role of an AG is a demanding one. It is, in fact, one of the most critical offices in our constitutional framework. So, beyond formal qualification, it calls for an individual of high professional standing, wide-ranging legal experience, sound judgement and a strong sense of public duty.
The AG must also have unimpeachable integrity and strong moral fibre. He must render objective advice and act fairly in the conduct of prosecutions, even when doing so may be difficult or unpopular. He must be prepared to uphold the law impartially and apply it equally to everyone, whether one is a Minister or the Leader of the Opposition.
Individuals with the requisite experience, judgement and integrity for this office are not easily found. The Government continually looks out for suitable candidates, one who can shoulder the full weight of these responsibilities.
At the same time, in making any appointments, the Government also takes into account a range of considerations, including the performance of the incumbent, his ability and willingness to serve and whether there are significant ongoing matters that require continuity and careful oversight. In particular, the Government continues to rely on Mr Wong's counsel on significant matters that remain in progress today, including negotiations on maritime boundaries; tax and financial sector legal reforms; and complex cross-border criminal matters. These and others are substantial responsibilities that will benefit from deep expertise, sound judgement and a steady hand.
Mr Wong has had a proven track record. We have seen and worked with him, we have assessed and we know the quality of the work, including on sensitive matters. He remains fit, able and willing to continue.
So, having considered all these factors and after the required consultations, the Prime Minister advised the President to re-appoint Mr Wong for another term based on the constitutional mechanism. The President then exercised his constitutional functions. And I believe this is a system of appointment which is careful, structured and designed to preserve both independence and public trust.
Sir, I have sketched out our areas of priority in broad terms. My colleagues, Senior Minister of State Murali and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua will set out further details in their speeches. However, even as we pursue these priorities, we must be very clear-eyed about the challenges that lie ahead of us. We are entering into an era of profound disruption, the kind of disruption the legal industry has not encountered in recent memory. And the most consequential driver of this disruption is artificial intelligence (AI). The numbers tell a striking story. Based on Thomson Reuters' survey findings last month, the proportion of legal professionals using generative AI in their organisation has roughly tripled since 2024. That is just about a year and a half, two years ago. Legaltech funding in 2025 reached US$5.99 billion, up from US$3.88 in 2023.
Closer to home, Singapore law firms, some with MinLaw's support, have begun piloting AI tools. The Supreme Court's own Court Audio Services System integrates audio recording and automated AI-driven transcription technology, allowing real-time conversion of spoken words into written text. This and other examples, many other examples, shows a profession already in motion, moving and evolving with the advent of technology.
But we have to ask ourselves, what does this mean for us, as a legal profession, in practice? AI-powered tools are already conducting document reviews, drafting contracts and flagging regulatory exposure across multiple jurisdictions at speeds that no humans can replicate or even match. Some platforms can even analyse thousands of precedents and generate predictive assessments of case outcomes – work that previously demanded years and years of legal experience.
These are genuinely impressive capabilities. But they also raise very important questions for the future of our profession. How does a young lawyer develop judgement, intuition and professional instinct if the AI performs the basic tasks and gives the answers to these young lawyers? How will our lawyers develop these instincts which are honed by a process of doing and redoing and repeating it? Who bears responsibility when the AI produces errors with commercial implications? How do we regulate cross-border AI-generated advice without, at the same time, allowing regulation to stifle innovation? And perhaps most fundamentally, how do we harness AI to serve the public interest, and not just allow it to widen the gap between those who can afford sophisticated legal technology and those who cannot?
The impact on legal education is equally pressing. Our law schools have, for generations, trained lawyers through a well-established pedagogy, where the process of reading and analysing cases, drafting legal memos and crafting oral arguments – all of these, which I described as the process – is as important as the outcome when it comes to training.
But if the AI can do the research or draft a memo in minutes, what happens to this training? What happens to the cultivation of hands-on experience, in making mistakes?
Perhaps the law degree ought then to redouble its emphasis on what AI cannot replicate. Ethical reasoning, empathetic client engagement and the exercise of judgement in areas of genuine ambiguity and moral courage.
The challenge is equally acute for those who are already in practice and in continuing legal education. Can our structures support a landscape where skills need to be updated every once in a while, more recently, every once in a few months?
These questions, Sir, do not admit easy answers. They go to the heart of what it means to practise law, to train lawyers and to uphold the standards of a profession entrusted with the heavy responsibility of the administration of justice.
Some of these issues will be studied by the Future of the Legal Profession Committee, which I spoke about earlier, and we will have to work with the profession and the broader legal industry to understand these issues deeply and come together to find a solution.
But I want to emphasise this point. These are not matters which any single institution can resolve in isolation. The challenges before us will require a collective response – from practitioners, in-house counsel, academics, regulators, policy-makers, law students as well as members of the public whose interests the legal system ultimately serves.
As a first step, MinLaw is organising a gathering of the legal industry later this week, we titled it, \"The Next Charter: Shaping Singapore's Legal Future Together\" on 6 March. This is an opportunity for an open, frank and candid conversation about the challenges we face, starting with AI and technology, but also understanding the road ahead and the opportunities that might lie ahead for us and the future we want to build, collectively, for Singapore's legal industry.
Sir, as I conclude, I want to close with a direct appeal to every member of Singapore's legal community. What you do matters a lot, not just to the profession, but to Singapore's development and our continued success. In this extraordinary age of change, perhaps it matters more.
Singapore did not build our legal system by accident, as I sketched out earlier, nor can we hope to preserve and strengthen it by accident. It will require all of us – my Ministry, the Bar, the Judiciary, our law schools, the firms and every single lawyer – to engage with purpose and genuine commitment and intentionality to tackling the disruptive challenges.
On this endeavour, what I can assure this House of is that MinLaw will not be a spectator. We will be an active, present and engaged partner – listening carefully and investing purposefully in our people and in our institutions.
Sir, AI will not replace the lawyer, but the lawyer who harnesses AI thoughtfully and more effectively will outpace the lawyer who does not. And the legal system that navigates these changes wisely will command far greater trust and attract more commerce and investment, than one that responds with uncritical enthusiasm, or perhaps, unexamined fear.
The 1826 Charter of Justice gave Singapore a foundation. We worked on it. Generations that followed built upon it. Now it falls to us – this generation, to ensure that the next chapter is worthy of all that came before it.
Sir, MinLaw remains fully committed to working with every stakeholder in Singapore's legal landscape to advance a legal system that is excellent, accessible, adaptive and just. And that is work that we must continue together. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Murali Pillai.
The Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Murali Pillai): Mr Chairman, the law cannot generate a single cent in commerce or bring a single idea into market. It powers neither our economy nor our society. It collapses on itself when it stands alone. Yet, we will have no peace, no security, no comfort, neither prosperity nor progress without the law.
The law underwrites both the private and the public sectors of our world. Today, I will speak about both and how they, together, secure the livelihoods of fellow Singaporeans. MinLaw will steward the next bound of our development in three ways: first, the private – empowering businesses through IP as an engine of growth; second, the public – facilitating resolution of disputes by deepening capabilities and reliability of our dispute resolution pathways; and third, the people – to grow the capabilities of our legal profession.
First, intangible assets (IA) and IP are critical for enterprises to develop – as mentioned by the hon Members Mr Jackson Lam and Mr Mark Lee. The most valuable resources of a business are often intangible.
These assets are generated by the ingenuity and creativity of men, but they are given specific value by the law. Singapore has been working for decades to harness IP for economic growth. Since 2021, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) has stepped up to attract and grow innovative enterprises using IA and IP, guided by the Singapore IP Strategy (SIPS) 2030.
While the assets may be intangible, the benefits of focusing on IA and IP are tangible. This year, IPOS celebrates 25 years of empowering businesses to turn ideas into tangible assets. In the second tranche of SIPS 2030, we will work harder to uplift enterprises and strengthen Singapore as a global IA and IP Hub. This includes – first, supporting businesses, particularly small and medium enterprises (SMEs), in managing their IP and unlocking its value. For example, the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (ASME) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) will exchange a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in a few days to set up the WIPO IP Business Centre @ ASME – the first in ASEAN. From there, more SMEs will gain access to initiatives like WIPO's IP Management Clinic Singapore programme to develop IP strategies and overseas expansion.
Second, stepping up work on IA and IP valuation. This includes developing frameworks with financial institutions, public agencies and industry partners, to help companies realise IA value and commercialise their ideas through licensing and partnerships. IPOS will support our partners in publishing the IA valuation guidelines this year. To Mr Mark Lee's queries on research attachments as well as IP financing – on the former, the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) seconds researchers to SMEs. IPI Singapore, a subsidiary under Enterprise Singapore, also assists SMEs with technology matching services and advisory support to develop go-to-market strategies. On the latter, IPOS is studying the market gaps in enterprise financing.
I now move to AI. Human creativity is the lifeblood of innovation and progress. As we harness AI for growth, we are committed to maintaining a balanced and robust IP regime. Ms Goh Hanyan and Mr Jackson Lam spoke about concerns relating to the training and use of generative AI (GenAI), particularly from the creative sectors.
Our approach to developing our IP regime is human-centric. We are working with stakeholders to refine our regime, for example, the Singapore Academy of Law (SAL) supported by MinLaw and IPOS, organised industry and expert roundtables.
The feedback was broadly supportive of Singapore's copyright framework which balances AI development with guardrails to protect rights-holders' interests. It also raised suggestions for further consultation and refinement, which we will study.
Last year, IPOS also launched explainers to help the public and businesses understand how copyright laws address key GenAI issues. We are monitoring international developments to remain competitive. To take our work further, MinLaw and IPOS will conduct a public consultation later this year on potential refinements. This aims to engage broader perspectives and co-create our approach to AI-related IP issues.
Next, I turn to dispute resolution. Businesses need clear, reliable and impartial pathways to resolution, providing predictability and certainty in their relationships. Singapore has long recognised this and worked hard to be an international dispute resolution hub, as hon Members Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Vikram Nair said.
Over the past decades, our ecosystem has deepened. Our institutions refined their rules and procedures, expanded their international panels and strengthened their case management capabilities. Signature platforms, such as the Singapore Convention Week, reinforce our reputation as a global node. This contributes to Singapore's standing as a services centre and signals our openness for commerce.
However, the landscape is evolving and we must continue to innovate. Technology is transforming dispute management, from virtual hearings to AI-assisted document review. Our institutions have also deepened offerings in specialist areas.
Reinforcing our frameworks and institutions is insufficient without looking at our people. MinLaw is working with industry on three thrusts: first, education and professionalisation – to deepen the strength of our legal industry; second, adoption of legaltech – to reduce repetitive, low-value tasks; and third, providing opportunities in emerging areas of work, such as the environmental, social and governance (ESG) sector.
First, on legal education and professionalisation. We have been implementing recommendations of the Reform of Legal Education Working Group since late 2024. These better equip legal professionals for cross-border work with civil law partners. In the professional sphere, SAL has published the national legal sector competency framework for disputes and corporate lawyers and in-house counsel. By 2027, a framework and training roadmap for allied legal professionals will follow.
Second, harnessing technology. Hon Members Mr Vikram Nair and Ms Cassandra Lee spoke on AI adoption. MinLaw is committed to supporting our legal professionals adopt AI. First, we are addressing the adoption barriers directly. Change management remains a challenge, especially for smaller Singapore Law Practices (SLPs) alongside cost. We launched the pilot of the Legal Innovation and Future-Readiness Transformation (LIFT) initiative in June 2025 to support these firms to diagnose technology needs and implement tailored legaltech solutions. To date, seven SLPs have joined the pilot. Their experiences will guide how we will support the broader industry in 2027.
Second, we are ensuring responsible GenAI use – a point raised by Mr Nair. We conducted a public consultation in September 2025 on the draft Guide for Using GenAI in the Legal Sector and received over 20 constructive responses. We will be publishing the Guide in the coming weeks. On Ms Lee's point about AI skills, we are also partnering the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) to build AI fluency amongst our lawyers and in-house counsel through upskilling and training initiatives, together with professional bodies including SAL and the Singapore Corporate Counsel Association (SCCA).
Third, we are creating more avenues for lawyers, including in-house counsel, to discover legaltech, through initiatives such as LegalTech GoWhere and the Singapore Open Legal Informatics Database (SOLID) with our partner, the Singapore Management University.
Besides assisting legal professionals, AI can transform the way our society interacts with the law. This has tremendous potential for good – provided it is harnessed responsibly, as hon Member Mr Nair mentioned. Users ultimately remain responsible for how they use these tools and the attendant risks – knowing that the algorithms are incapable of weighing consequences or applying ethical reasoning in the way legal professionals do. MinLaw will monitor these developments and raise public awareness on the responsible use of GenAI tools in legal matters.
My final point is on capturing opportunities in emerging areas of legal demand. One example is ESG, which Ms Gho Sze Kee spoke on. Sustainability is one of the paradoxes of the business world, even as it is one of the most important and consequential factors in business decisions, it is often overlooked or under-considered. Being an emerging area, the Government is taking a targeted approach to build capability across the legal profession. For firms with a dedicated ESG practice, we launched a pilot ESG-Legal Secondment Programme this year. MinLaw co-funds secondments for lawyers into participating corporations, giving secondees exposure to ESG business contexts. The pilot began in February with a small initial cohort and we will review its outcome later this year.
Mr Chairman, I have spoken today about the importance of the law in giving value to ideas. I want to end on the need to give power to the law.
In a world increasingly dominated by might, money and manipulation, it is vital for us to remember that it is the law that enables justice, reason and rightfulness to find strength and standing.
There are no shortcuts to give power to the law, but one unvarying path is to remember that law is inextricably tied up with the human condition. Even as I spoke about the need for technology, I have spoken more about the need for people. We must build and grow a profession with the skills, courage and moral instincts suited for our tumultuous times. The law underwrites both the private and the public sectors, but it is for, and in the people, that the law finds its surest power.
Mr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law (Mr Eric Chua): Chairman, the Rule of Law underpins our society's broader objectives and continued development.
In my speech, I will focus on two key areas: first, optimising land and creating good spaces for our economic and social needs; second, upholding the Rule of Law and expanding access to justice to strengthen our social fabric. We do so by ensuring that no one is denied legal access and by supporting vulnerable groups.
Let me start with land. Sir, we are committed to optimising state properties to better meet community and business needs. This safeguards land resources for our current and future generations. To this end, SLA engages public agencies and industry to better understand market needs and identify opportunities to put state land and properties to good use, in a pro-enterprise manner.
Mr Christopher de Souza and Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh asked about the use of state land and properties. I will share some examples.
Responding to arts practitioners' call for a dedicated space, SLA collaborated with the National Arts Council (NAC) to transform state properties at Kampong Java Road, into \"Flock\" – an artist-led innovation and creation hub.
SLA has also been activating suitable spaces in response to requests for \"weather-proofed\" sports spaces. One creative example is the placement of sport facilities under viaducts. These were previously under-utilised due to noise and lack of essential utilities. But we saw potential in the natural shelter and worked with Sport Singapore to transform the Gali Batu Flyover area into ARK Sports Village @ Segar. What was previously unused space is now a thriving sports facility.
Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh also asked about a longer tenure for more state properties. Currently, state properties are let out for a range of interim uses, typically with tenures of under 10 years, to retain planning flexibility. In response to feedback that such tenures may not facilitate capital expenditure recovery and may limit investment in property rejuvenation, SLA has leased out selected state properties on longer tenures, subject to planning considerations.
For instance, SLA recently launched the sale of the Adam Park heritage bungalow cluster on a 30-year lease. Such extended tenure allows time for investment recoupment and greater business certainty.
Ms Goh Han Yan asked about improvements to the Land Betterment Charge (LBC) regime. We have enhanced various aspects of the LBC framework since it came into force in 2022. Minister Edwin spoke about the enhancements just last week at the Real Estate Developers' Association of Singapore (REDAS) Spring Festival Lunch. More details may be found in his speech on the MinLaw website.
It is also vital that our legal processes and frameworks remain accessible, fair and effective. We continue to review our legal frameworks to adapt to trends and societal needs so that Singaporeans can seek recourse and resolve frictions whenever they arise.
First, in community justice. Legislation was passed in 2024 to enhance the Community Disputes Management Framework. We have made mediation mandatory in appropriate cases. Second, a new Community Relations Unit (CRU) has been created to investigate neighbour disputes and to act. This is being piloted in Tampines. Third, we have enhanced the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal (CDRT) to improve the service journey for victims and enable them to obtain relief more quickly.
Mr Gerald Giam made several points on the CDRT's processes.
Sir, the CDRT is but one component of our broader community disputes framework, which also includes mediation and the CRU. Many disputes arise from misunderstandings or lifestyle differences. Calm, neighbourly exchanges can usually go a long way. But if informal communication fails, parties should attempt formal mediation. Mediation at the Community Mediation Centre is quick, effective and free. About 80% of cases reach an amicable settlement and that is why we made it mandatory.
The CDRT is an avenue of last resort, after all other measures have failed. As it is a court of law, some proper processes are necessary to ensure the proper administration of justice. The pre-filing assessment is not designed to redirect or deter residents. Instead, it is meant to help residents assess whether their dispute is suitable for the CDRT.
For example, residents should attempt mediation before filing a CDRT claim. So, the form asks whether mediation has been attempted before.
Residents also cannot file a CDRT claim against persons who are not their neighbours. Again, the form highlights this point. This ensures that residents do not spend time, money and energy filing a claim, that cannot be heard in the CDRT.
Those who need help navigating the e-filing system, including those with specific language needs, can contact the State Courts Service Hub. On the $150 filing fee, those with financial need can apply for a waiver. But again, parties should always attempt mediation first. It is entirely free and mostly effective.
Second, we have been studying ways to streamline the enforcement of civil judgments, as mentioned by Mr Vikram Nair, Mr Gabriel Lam and Mr Alex Yeo.
We received feedback that the time, the effort and the cost of enforcing judgments can be disproportionate to the judgment sum, leaving some judgments unenforced. This is undesirable. We aim to simplify the enforcement process, therefore, to be more effective, efficient and affordable.
We intend to do this by: one, giving the Court greater powers to identify a judgment debtor's assets and means; two, by introducing new enforcement modes to deter and punish non-compliance with Court orders; and three, creating new Civil Judgment Enforcement Officers to assist parties with enforcing their civil judgments.
We have been consulting with relevant stakeholders, including the Bar and the Judiciary, and aim to introduce a Bill later this year.
Third, in family justice. We have made changes to help families move forward with minimal acrimony, including addressing non-compliance with maintenance orders, as noted by Mr Nair and Mr Yeo.
Since establishing the new Maintenance Enforcement Division in January last year, the Family Justice Courts have referred around 1,000 cases to the new Division. So far, about two thirds of concluded cases settled during or after conciliation. This is a good start and we plan to expand coverage in future phases.
Another area is ensuring will-making remains accessible to Singaporeans. Singaporeans have a range of options. Depending on complexity, budget and personal preference, they can write their own wills, engage will-making services or even ask a friend for help.
Ms Hany Soh asked if wills can be registered for free in SAL's Wills Registry and suggested regulation or mandatory insurance for non-lawyers.
On the former, the fee defrays the costs of the service, which includes maintaining records for up to 120 years of the testator's life. Those with genuine financial needs can apply for a fee waiver. I would add that the validity of a will does not depend on registration with the Registry.
On the latter, we do not plan to impose insurance requirements to encourage options for legacy planning. If the public is unsure whether their service-provider is a licensed lawyer, they may check the MinLaw webpage. It has a search function that lists lawyers who have valid practising licences at the date of the search.
Lastly, I turn to access to justice. It is a key pillar that ensures our laws and justice system are not just for those with means, thereby preserving our social fabric, as mentioned by Mr Nair.
We have been helping those in need through the Legal Aid Bureau (LAB) and the Public Defender's Office (PDO).
Since 1958, LAB has provided the vulnerable with civil legal aid, including matrimonial, monetary claims and probate matters. The impact of LAB's work is significant – receiving an average of around 7,000 applications annually.
In 2022, MinLaw established the PDO, which institutionalised criminal defence aid. PDO received about 2,400 applications in 2025. A portion of applications is referred to Pro Bono SG's Criminal Legal Aid Scheme under a co-delivery model. Additionally, LAB and PDO partner with social service agencies, Family Service Centres and Social Services Offices to provide holistic assistance and referrals for applicants with social needs, such as family violence, addiction, mental health and housing problems.
Dr Wan Rizal, Mr Alex Yeo, Mr Gabriel Lam and Mr Jackson Lam asked about ensuring access to legal aid for lower-income and lower-middle-income Singaporeans.
We continue to review the means test thresholds regularly. In 2022, we expanded the income coverage for criminal defence aid from the bottom 25th to the bottom 35th percentile by PCHI.
In 2024, we adjusted the PCHI and annual value thresholds for civil legal aid and criminal defence aid, accounting for the increase in household income and property value over the years.
As the Minister announced earlier, we will expand civil legal aid coverage by the LAB. We will raise the PCHI threshold for civil legal aid from $1,050 to $1,650. This could potentially benefit up to 1,000 more Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents annually.
To account for rising household income, the bank savings and non-Central Provident Fund investment threshold for both civil legal aid and criminal defence aid will be raised from $10,000 to $12,000 to ensure that the truly needy remain eligible.
We target to implement this later this year.
Applicants with extenuating circumstances will continue to be reviewed by an independent means test panel comprising legal and social service professionals.
Beyond Government schemes, we continue to partner with the legal fraternity and key stakeholders, such as Pro Bono SG to strengthen the legal help ecosystem for all Singaporeans.
Mr Alex Yeo asked about those facing legal issues arising from the loss of mental capacity of family members. In 2025, we amended the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1995 to allow means testing based on the mentally incapacitated person, not the volunteers applying to be their deputy. This has reduced financial barriers and encouraged more volunteer deputies for vulnerable persons without family support.
Finally, we are also examining how our justice system may better serve those with disabilities or mental health conditions as needs for these individuals often go beyond legal support. This was mentioned by Mr Vikram Nair.
In better serving these individuals, we have in the past made some efforts. In 2010, we introduced community-based sentences, including the Mandatory Treatment Order (MTO). The MTO allows certain offenders with treatable psychiatric conditions to be treated in the community rather than be incarcerated in appropriate cases. In 2018, we expanded the MTO scheme to benefit more suitable offenders. Other measures include the Appropriate Adult Scheme for Persons with Mental Disabilities, administered by MINDS to support such persons during interviews with investigating officers.
But we fully recognise that more can be done. We want to finetune how our system caters to these vulnerable individuals' unique needs while delivering just outcomes. For instance, effective rehabilitation may differ for offenders with different underlying conditions. While some may benefit from psychiatric treatment, others such as those living with autism or intellectual disability may benefit from other interventions.
These questions intersect multiple areas such as law, social services and healthcare, and involve stakeholders from the private and public sector. Thus, MinLaw formally announced the launch of the Inclusive Justice Taskforce (IJT) in January this year. The IJT will examine how society can better support individuals with such conditions and disabilities who risk offending or who interact with the criminal justice system.
Our objective is simple. It is to raise public awareness of what works and recommend tangible improvements.
The IJT has begun its work and we will provide updates in due course.
I am privileged to co-lead the IJT alongside Ms Peggy Yee, founding director of PY Legal LLC and a long-time advocate in this space. I am also grateful for the IJT members across the private and public sectors – lawyers, policy-makers, law enforcement officers, social service professionals, healthcare experts, community partners and caregiver representatives.
Sir, to be sure, we face both challenges and disruptions, but also tremendous opportunities. Our Ministry's priorities are crystal clear. We will enhance legal services and intellectual property to support the economy, uphold the rule of law and expand access to justice and, at the same time, optimise land to meet our community needs. Together with our partners, we will press on.
As we commemorate the bicentennial anniversary of the Second Charter of Justice this year, we look not only to our own history but to the future – one where the law continues to serve Singapore and Singaporeans well. [Applause.]
The Chairman: We have time for clarifications. Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Thank you, Sir. Sir, I have some clarifications for Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua.
On filing CDRT claims, can vernacular translations be provided on the online application form and can evidence exceeding the two-year limit be allowed to better deal with long-running disputes?
Secondly, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary said that filing help is available at the State Courts' service hub. How many individuals has the service hub assisted to successfully file applications in each of the last three years? I asked this question in my cut.
Does the hub provide end-to-end guidance for applicants who are not digitally savvy and not just advice? For example, if a resident does not have a Singpass, can the service hub help the resident to complete the filing of the CDRT claim?
Mr Eric Chua: Sir, I thank the Member for his clarifications. On the provisions of information in vernacular languages on the website, I think that is something that we can potentially explore and look at. Of course, we are also mindful not to provide for content in a variety of languages such that it affects the way in which the content can be consumed. So, accessibility of how the website presents itself to users is also something that we consider.
With regard to the two-year framework, what we want to prevent in many cases, because a lot of times, community disputes verge on \"he says\", \"I say\". And what we want to prevent is the return of vexatious claims made by parties. So, a two-year framework removes the potential for these vexatious claims to come back on a recurrent basis.
On the next question about the cases, about 400 CDRT-related enquiries last year were handled by the State Courts Services Hub.
And can the Member repeat the last point about end-to-end services again, if you do not mind?
The Chairman: Mr Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: I would like to ask if the service hub provides end-to-end guidance and not just advice. So, that means if an applicant needs to file the claim but does not know how to do it, can the hub actually help them to do it step by step rather than say, \"You just do this, do this\" and then you go back home and do it on your own.
Mr Eric Chua: I think the Service Hub provides assistance on a case by case basis, and to the best of their ability in each case to really walk through the service journey with each individual user.
The Chairman: Ms Hany Soh.
Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Thank you, Chairman. I wish to first declare that I am a practicing lawyer, serving on the Law Society's pro bono practice committee, as well as our Pro Bono SG's community legal clinics committee.
I have two clarifications for Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua. The first is in relation to his explanations that the registration fees for the Wills Registry cannot be waived at this juncture and the reason is because it is to defray the fees for maintaining such a service. In this regard, I wish to propose, can we consider instead that waiving the fees but instead increase the search fees component. Fundamentally, the reason is because we really want to enable the Wills Registry to become a reliable and accurate repository where we are able to know exactly how many wills are accurate registered and done in Singapore.
The second suggestion or clarification is, to strengthen the comprehensive legacy planning, apart from the suggestions that I have made on Wills Registry and LPAs waivers, I wish to enquire whether can we also explore for the advanced medical directives, whether currently it is only allowed for the doctors to witness the signing of this legal instrument? Akin to the same principle for registrations of LPAs, can we also work with the Ministry of Health to explore for the lawyers to do a comprehensive legacy planning which allows them to also witness the signing of an Advance Medical Directive (AMD)?
Mr Eric Chua: Chairman, I thank the Member for her clarifications. On the second part about AMDs, I understand that to look at it comprehensively for a full suite of future care plans instruments, AMD definitely is one of the instruments that we can potentially look at. But in my own exchanges with, say, seniors on the ground, I think it is oftentimes far easier to broach a conversation on setting up an LPA and also drafting or talking about an Advance Care Plan. And then the AMD, which is actually much further down the line, is something that we can potentially look at after all these more upstream instruments have been addressed.
On the Member's first question, do you mind repeating that again?
The Chairman: Ms Soh.
Ms Hany Soh: The first question is, can we explore rather than to not totally include or consider the waiver of fees, instead can we explore increasing the search fees instead, so as to achieve the objectives that Senior Parliamentary Secretary had mentioned in terms of defraying the fees for maintaining such a services in the Wills Registry?
Mr Eric Chua: I thank the Member for her clarifications. I think that is something we can explore and we will take it back to consider.
The Chairman: Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh.
Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh (Nominated Member): Thank you, Chair, and I thank the Ministers for their response. I just have two clarification questions. The first question has to do with what Minister has shared about support for the green transition, the digital economy, major regional infrastructure projects, and sports and entertainment. I was wondering if you could elaborate on that.
My second clarification question has to do with the resourcing of PDO to ensure that there is access and a manageable case load for the lawyers. I think it is good that legal access is made more available to more Singaporeans, but I think we also want to ensure that the quality of service is comparable, and so whether PDO is adequately resourced; how does the Ministry think about that?
And in line with that as well, whether there are stronger support and incentives for lawyers doing pro bono work?
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Sir, I thank Prof Goh for his support for MinLaw's work and our position. Overall, we have focused on Singapore being a hub. A hub that we built up. As I explained earlier, in dispute resolution, we have now one of the foremost number and the profile in terms of international institutions located in Singapore, so it made Singapore a hub for transactions. And the stronger we are in terms of having an infrastructure to resolve disputes in a clear, fair, transparent manner, the more likely it is that investors will see opportunity in Singapore.
We take the same approach when it comes to IP as well as in international restructuring. So, these are areas in which we have built up a hub.
Prof Goh mentioned sports and entertainment. I think this is an option and avenue for us to explore, and in fact, when I discuss with members of the Bar, with the Law Society, there are already lawyers who are interested in the areas, they practise in those areas and they are keen to elevate their practice areas.
We have also had initial discussions with the Court of Arbitration for Sport with a view to seeing whether we can have collaboration with them, again, to bring it in here.
And we do that on the same principle as what I have articulated for dispute resolution. If you have a system of being able to resolve disputes here, then you are more likely to be able to attract the entire ecosystem of investment and economic opportunity into Singapore as well. So, on that basis we have been working very closely with various practitioners, people who are interested in this area, and also, as I said, the Court of Arbitration for Sport, which represents one of the foremost global bodies on resolving sports disputes.
To make one other point to Prof Goh's question, there is a degree to which IP can intersect with sport as well. In fact, WIPO is making this year's focus on World IP Day, the theme of in \"IP and Sports\". Looking at sports, not just in terms of the resolving disputes around what you might do with transfers and the like, but also in terms of commercial marketing, licence rights, broadcast, image rights and the like. So, WIPO is working on promoting IP and sports, and we see an opportunity there, because, as I mentioned earlier, IP is one of our areas of focus for building the hub status in Singapore.
My colleague Senior Minister of State Murali will talk a little bit more about green transition, but I will address your point on PDO. Since we started the PDO, the number of cases, applications have gone up. We started with about 1,500 in 2023. Last year, it was in excess of 2,300. So, the cases have gone up.
But I would like to assure the Member that we had catered for this. When we set up PDO, we had a plan to scale up our resources and manpower, expecting that the numbers would rise. We are also working with Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS) to share the case load; and so that is manageable for the foreseeable future. We now have grown the PDO with 22 public defender officers, and they are full-time, they are very professional and dedicated. And I think they also find reward and value and purpose in the work that they do.
So, on that note, the Member's last point was what can else can we do? We work with a variety of different organisations, including the Law Society, Pro Bono SG, with CLAS, and with the Bar in general, to promote giving back through pro bono work. And Pro Bono SG, CLAS and the work that we do with PDO are some examples of this.
Mr Murali Pillai: Sir, I would like to respond to the hon Member, Prof Goh's clarification on green transition. Here, the law's role is to shape how businesses operate, invest and structure transactions. And in this regard, IPOS has done studies on green trademarks and green economy. We also provide patent analytics insights to support the green economy.
Over and above that, we are strengthening the ESG capabilities across the profession in partnership with key legal associations. For example, we supported initiatives such as the Singapore Corporate Counsel Association's (SCCA's) inaugural Sustainability Connect, a dedicated platform that brings together legal and sustainability professionals for knowledge exchange.
SCCA Academy has also started to roll out ESG-focused training programmes, including a course delivered in partnership with Nanyang Technological University's Carbon Market Academy of Singapore. At the same time, the Law Society of Singapore and SAL have introduced a range of ESG-related training and thought leadership initiatives, equipping legal professionals with relevant capabilities.
The Chairman: We are approaching the end of guillotine time. I know a few of you still have clarifications to make. Priority will be given to those who have spoken on this earlier. So, please keep all clarifications and responses short.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Sir. I have two clarifications for the Minister. But before that, I would like to thank him for the additional information that he has just given to us on the recent reappointment of the AG, which was information we did not have before. So, that was actually the thrust of my cut.
So, my two clarifications. One, can he confirm then that the Prime Minister did not shortlist any other candidates in the recent round of appointment of AG? And the second is this: he mentioned that the current AG is required to continue managing some ongoing projects, which are quite complex. Is he saying now that the AG has become individually indispensable in the managing of these projects, there is no one being groomed to take over? Because from a system point of view it sounds to me precarious, and in three years' time we might be facing the same argument again.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Thank you, Ms Lim. I cited a lot of public source information and data. Mr Wong's qualifications, his reputation, his CV and what he has achieved in both in public service as well as in private practice, I think it is really common knowledge.
The ongoing projects that you mentioned and you seem to say that they are new, the fact that we have maritime boundary discussions, I think is not new. I have not gone into the sensitive materials because I cannot and I will not, but I think it suffices to say that we take this into account.
And on the Member's second question, it is not that any individual is indispensable. But at a given point in time, a multitude of factors are taken into account, as I said, including whether he is available, whether he is able to continue. Continuity is one factor, but it is not the only one. But taking all of this into account, factors such as what are the ongoing projects, his ability to contribute, the projects that are ongoing, the stature and reputation of the individual at hand, all of these are factors that we take into account in selecting the individual for the office.
As for the Member's first question, I am not going to go into whether there is a long list or a shortlist, but it suffices to say that we will consider this carefully, think about what the incumbent has done, whether there is a need to change at that point in time and if so, what are the options, and take all of these factors into consideration before deciding on making a recommendation to the President.
The Chairman: Dr Wan Rizal.
Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Sir, I have two clarifications for the Minister. The first is regarding making mediation mandatory in appropriate cases. Can the Minister share what is the requirement and what are the type of cases for which mediation can be made mandatory? My second clarification is on both mandatory mediation and the CRU. Can the Minister share whether there are any plans for the Government to expand mandatory mediation and the CRU beyond the Tampines pilot?
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Sir, we have taken the view that mediation is effective. Members heard Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua outline some of the statistics. Broadly, although I know that they currently apply to consensual mediation, 80% of cases are resolved amicably through mediation. So, we think this is an effective mechanism and framework.
More importantly, in the context of community disputes where you are talking about two neighbours who live in proximity to one another, we think that it is, in fact, the most appropriate means by which you should resolve a dispute. So, we have designed the enhanced framework in the Community Disputes Resolution Act, which we passed in Parliament some months ago as having a lower threshold for driving parties to mediation, and in this case, mandatory mediation. We think that in most cases, matters ought to be resolved in the first instance and maybe even in the second instance through mediation.
Therefore, the threshold for issuing a mediation direction is low. There is no a need to investigate the case. So, the officer who issues the direction does not have to ascertain whether one is right or the other one is wrong. As long as there is a prima facie basis for believing that there is a valid complaint and that they are not trying to bring a neighbour to mediation vexatiously. In those circumstances, the threshold having been met, the direction will be issued.
In terms of an expansion, let me say that we are studying the pilot that is being conducted at Tampines, learning from the experiences, understanding the processes and streamlining it, and in some cases, finetuning it. We are thinking about what more can be done and we are studying the expansion, both in terms of the pilot, as well as thinking about what other functions of the CRU can be expanded. When we are ready with that, we will come back and explain that in due course.
The Chairman: One last clarification. Mr Mark Lee.
Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member): Sir, I would like to thank Senior Minister of State Murali that IPOS is actually studying recommendations on IP financing. I think in this day and age, businesses will need as many financing options in their arsenal. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State if IPOS has an indicative or targeted timeline, and whether we will be piloting initiatives in this area?
Mr Murali Pillai: Just a short response, Mr Chairman, Sir, because I do not want to be guillotined. The point about enterprise financing is that we need to figure out the blind spots as well as the moral hazards. What we do not want is for, in respect of the Member's suggestion, the Government to assume the risk and then, as a result of which, financial institutions may not necessarily be minded to do their due diligence and that creates a problem as well. So, we will study this very carefully and make the announcements in due course.
The Chairman: The hon Member Mr Vikram Nair had earlier officially applied for leave from Parliament for today because he has to attend a Court hearing. I had accordingly approved his leave. Therefore, since Mr Vikram Nair is not here to withdraw his amendment, I will now put the amendment to a vote.
The Question is, \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head R of the Estimates be reduced by $100.\" Those who agree say \"Aye\". Those who disagree say \"No\".
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated dissent. (proc text)]
The Chairman: I think the \"Noes\" have it, the \"Noes\" have it.
[(proc text) Amendment negatived. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $417,819,500 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $287,047,600 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply – Head V (Ministry of Trade and Industry)","subTitle":"A competitive, connected and resilient economy, with diverse pathways and opportunities for all","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Chairman: Head V, Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI). Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Chairman, I move, \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head V of the Estimates be reduced by $100\".
Mr Chairman, our economy today is less about weathering cyclical volatility and more about navigating deep structural change in the global order.
Geopolitical fragmentation, industrial policy competition, supply chain reconfiguration, decarbonisation pressures and rapid technological disruption have fundamentally reshaped the landscape.
Recent volatility in global technology stocks also reminds us how quickly shifts in risk sentiment can transmit across financial markets, trade and investment flows. This is now further amplified by escalating tensions in the Middle East, which are already driving energy price volatility, safe haven flows and heightened uncertainty across global markets and can translate into higher inflation, tighter financial conditions and weaker global growth.
For a small and open economy like Singapore, these external forces will continue to shape our growth trajectory.
In this environment, Singapore’s strategy must do three things simultaneously: strengthen business resilience, move decisively into higher-value growth areas and translate growth into quality jobs for Singaporeans. Ultimately, with constraints on labour and capital, growth must increasingly come from within, by deepening capabilities, innovation and knowledge, in other words, productivity. Both labour productivity and total factor productivity must become our primary engine of growth.
First, supporting businesses through structural transition. Externally, trade realignment, onshoring trends and slower global growth are making the operating environment more complex. Internally, firms must navigate digitalisation, artificial intelligence (AI) adoption, workforce redesign and sustainability pressures.
Government support schemes are necessary. But the key question is whether they are sufficiently deep to drive real transformation. How are our Industry Transformation Maps evolving to move firms up the value chain, rather than simply helping them manage costs? How are we measuring genuine productivity gains, not just adoption of digital tools, but outcomes such as management upgrading, process redesign and business model transformation?
More fundamentally, how are we ensuring that firms build internal capabilities, in management, innovation and operations, that generate sustained productivity gains and diffuse across the wider economy? More broadly, we should continue refining how our fiscal tools support transformation. For example, can we design more targeted AI diffusion support for small and medium enterprises (SMEs), tied to measurable outcomes such as productivity improvements, cost savings or new market access?
Can we strengthen wage and training co-funding for job redesign, particularly in sectors exposed to global competition, so that firms upgrade jobs rather than displace workers? And given the increasingly volatile global environment, should we consider a counter-cyclical accelerator, pre-approved support that can be activated quickly during downturns, so that firms and workers receive timely assistance without delays? More broadly, our fiscal tools should be fast, targeted and where appropriate automatic, supporting adjustment while reinforcing long-term discipline.
Second, strengthening non-tradeable sectors. While we focus on tradeable sectors, we must not neglect domestic sectors such as tourism, retail and food and beverage (F&B). Could the Minister provide an update on the Tourism 2040 roadmap? What are the key milestones for achieving \"quality tourism\"?
In an increasingly competitive region, with strong investments by neighbours such as Malaysia and Vietnam, how are we sharpening Singapore’s differentiation while managing the churn in attractions, restaurants and lifestyle offerings?
On the Greater Sentosa Master Plan, what progress can be made, and what is the projected economic contribution and job creation?
More broadly, are we developing precinct-level strategies, such as waterfront, cultural and lifestyle clusters, in a more coordinated way? A vibrant domestic services sector is not just supportive. It can itself be a source of innovation, productivity and capability development.
Third, capitalising on growth and frontier sectors. I agree that Singapore must stay ahead in advanced manufacturing, high-trust services and frontier domains, such as quantum, decarbonisation and space. But how will this translate into jobs? What are the projected job creation numbers over the next five to 10 years and how are these distributed across skill levels?
In advanced manufacturing, how are we ensuring that investments deepen local technical capabilities, not just raise output per worker? In trust-based services, such as financial services, arbitration and digital trust, how are we sustaining Singapore’s advantage as global regulatory regimes evolve? And in frontier sectors, what is the realistic timeline for scalable job creation? Growth must not only create jobs. It must build capabilities that endure and diffuse across the economy.
Fourth, anchoring capabilities locally. It is not sufficient to build capabilities. We must anchor them in Singapore.
One key area is the transfer of capabilities from foreign talent to Singaporeans. How effective has the Capability Transfer Programme been in practice? Where foreign expertise is required, are we embedding structured and measurable capability transfer requirements as part of investment conditions? Are firms receiving incentives required to demonstrate progression of Singaporeans into higher-value roles? Sustainable growth must ultimately be driven by the accumulation of local human capital and knowledge.
At the same time, skills supply must keep pace with demand. Is the Ministry working closely with our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) to anticipate manpower needs in priority sectors? Given the cross-Ministry nature of this effort, how is coordination being strengthened to ensure timely and aligned talent development?
Fifth, Mr Chairman, energy security and economic resilience. As a resource-scarce country, we must accelerate our transition to greener energy to reduce vulnerability to global price shocks, especially in an era of heightened geopolitical fragmentation.
Kenya, whose President has expressed an ambition to be the \"Singapore of Africa\", now generates about 90% of its electricity from renewable sources. How does Singapore compare and how has our progress evolved over time?
What is the projected job creation from our decarbonisation push, across renewables integration, hydrogen, carbon management and grid resilience? How do we ensure that our sustainability ambitions are achieved while keeping energy reliable and affordable for households and businesses? And how can this transition catalyse new capabilities and industries locally, rather than simply raise costs?
Mr Chairman, our economic environment is undergoing deep structural change, requiring bold and coordinated action rather than incremental adjustments. Resilience without growth is stagnation. Growth must translate into jobs for Singaporeans and openness without anchoring local capability is unsustainable.
In a more volatile global environment, fiscal discipline and buffers give us the space to respond to shocks. But ultimately, our long-term competitiveness will depend on how deeply we build, retain and renew capabilities within our economy.
I look forward to MTI's clarifications on how it is sequencing these priorities and measuring success, not just in investment commitments, but in sustained capability development and meaningful employment outcomes for Singaporeans.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Shawn Loh (Jalan Besar): Mr Chairman, before I begin, I declare my interest as the group managing director of Commonwealth Capital Group.
I have spoken in this House before about the importance of growing Singaporean multinational companies (MNCs) that are deeply rooted here. Ultimately, size matters. When a Singapore enterprise scales successfully, it anchors high value headquarter (HQ) functions here. It develops local managerial talent pipelines, and it contributes to economic and supply chain resilience. Singaporeans will benefit if we have more local companies crossing the $1 billion mark in annual revenues.
MTI could consider setting an ambitious target for a number of new local companies to reach that scale by 2035 so that all Government agencies can marshal their resources to achieve this.
While it remains important to help the broad base of small and medium enterprises (SMEs), as defined by those earning below $100 million of annual revenue, there are unique challenges for companies to scale beyond $100 million. At the $100 million-level, these companies are still small enterprises on the global stage.
MTI could consider adding a separate tier of companies between $100 and $200 million in annual revenue, with slightly lower support than the SME tier, so that there is a gentler cliff effect in support levels, which are typically more generous for SMEs. Today, the support levels can drop from 70% to 30%. I wonder if this is incentivising some companies to stay below the $100 million mark in annual revenues unnaturally.
This is similar to legislation passing through the European parliament last week on a new tier of small mid-cap companies. Coincidentally, this new tier was set at 200 million Euros.
Many of our larger local companies are already winners in their respective industries. They are capable and ambitious, yet few manage to break into the next tier. That is because unlike other countries, we do not have a large domestic market. So, to scale further, our firms have to internationalise when they are smaller while operating headquarters with a higher-cost base. This is a structural disadvantage and makes scaling much more difficult.
So, to be clear, when the Government supports larger local firms to scale, it is no longer about picking future winners. It is instead about doubling down on current winners, helping them win even bigger in the future and thereby bringing more benefits to Singaporeans.
To scale, firms must do two things.
First, firms must develop more products and services with market fit. The Government has no business in telling companies what to do or how to do it. That is the job of entrepreneurial enterprises. But the Government can create a conducive economic infrastructure to improve the chances of success.
MTI's efforts to sustain a dynamic and vibrant enterprise ecosystem will help. Such an ecosystem can foster broader, deeper and richer collaborations that lead to a faster cycle of product development and market testing.
We also need to consider whether our factors of production, taken holistically, are competitive. These include manpower, land, energy and capital, to name a few. I will focus only on capital today.
Firms need access to sufficiently affordable capital in order to invest in fixed assets, such as machines to increase output, as well as working capital, which can grow quite quickly as firms scale. To that end, I have no objections to the Budget announcement to improve the Enterprise Financing Scheme for trade and fixed asset loans.
But organic growth is way too slow. We should be more impatient and help firms get to the moon faster. Focus on inorganic growth through mergers and acquisitions (M&A) to turbocharge our local companies. Affordable capital is also required for M&A.
Currently, the Enterprise Financing Scheme supports domestic acquisitions undertaken by firms up to $500 million in revenue, but this support lapses in a month. This was not mentioned in the Budget Statement. The Ministry should consider extending or broadening this support.
Second, once firms have product-market fit, they need to scale through new markets. We can do this in a few ways.
We can bring those markets into Singapore through tourism. This speaks to our tourism strategy to bring more high-spending tourists who can revitalise traditionally domestic-oriented industries, like F&B and retail. More tourists also mean more GST collections.
Of course, the more conventional way is to go into new markets overseas. When our firms expand overseas, the biggest constraints are often networks, credibility and distribution channels. This has traditionally been Government-led, but strong business-led communities can complement Government efforts. They can engage regulators and partners in a more informal and commercially driven manner; facilitate peer-to-peer sharing of intelligence and experiences; and build a sustained Singapore-branded presence.
I sometimes wonder why there are not more Singaporean business chambers of commerce overseas. For example, there does not seem to be one in the United States (US) or the United Kingdom (UK). Is the Government aware of any coordination challenges preventing similar business-led platforms from forming? Does the Government see any value in playing a stronger catalytic role to address these challenges?
Mr Chairman, I hope the Ministry can consider these perspectives to strengthen our enterprise landscape. Singaporeans can look forward to a new generation of Singaporean global enterprises with pride.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Chairman, before I begin, I declare my interests as president of the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) as well as the co-chair of the Consumer Protection Review Panel.
Sir, our consumer protection regime must move faster against errant businesses. Today, when CASE refers a business to the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCS) for breaches of the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (or CPFTA), it can take well over two years before an injunction is granted by the Courts. In recent cases, the process has taken between 28 and 39 months from referral to Court Order.
I do appreciate CCS for taking enforcement action and securing injunctions. But when enforcement takes years, consumers continue to suffer losses while cases are being processed. Errant businesses are allowed to continue their unfair practices for far too long.
We can and we must do better.
Today, CCS already exercises administrative powers under the Competition Act. I call on the Government to grant CCS similar administrative enforcement powers for breaches of the CPFTA. Such powers would allow CCS to act more swiftly – to issue directions, require compliance and stop harmful practices without relying solely on lengthy Court proceedings. This will free up judicial resources and, more importantly, protect our consumers earlier.
This is especially critical as unfair practices evolve.
We are already seeing a rise in dark patterns – deceptive online design tactics that manipulate consumers into making unintended purchases. These include hidden subscriptions, subscription traps that are difficult to cancel and AI-generated fake reviews that mislead consumers.
These practices spread quickly online. Our enforcement tools must move just as quickly. A nimble digital economy requires a nimble regulator. Beyond digital practices, we are also deeply concerned about the sharp rise in prepayment losses.
In 2025, consumers suffered over $2.7 million in prepayment losses. This is a 40.4% increase from 2024. While many of these cases arise from certain sectors, the broader concern is this – businesses with weak financial standing continue to collect large prepayments to sustain cashflow. When such businesses fail, consumers are left bearing the losses.
The risk is asymmetrical. Businesses gain immediate cashflow. Consumers bear the downside. I therefore call on the Government to introduce a mandatory cooling-off period for all businesses that collect significant prepayments. Consumers should have time – away from sales pressure – to consider their purchases carefully and to reconsider large prepaid commitments. A cooling-off period restores balance. It encourages responsible selling and gives consumers space to make rational decisions.
Finally, I would like to update that the Consumer Protection Review Panel has been studying a range of issues affecting consumers, including better monitoring of unfair practices in the digital age and prepayment safeguards. Public consultations will begin on 16 March 2026.
I must stress that consumer protection is not anti-business. It is pro-trust. Let us act decisively to protect that trust —
The Chairman: Mr Andre Low, you may take your two cuts together.
Mr Low Wu Yang Andre (Non-Constituency Member): Chairman, let me begin with a Latin phrase every lawyer knows – caveat emptor. Buyer beware. This was a doctrine that was borne for a simpler world – a world of physical retail and handshakes, where buyer and sellers stood on more equal ground.
This world is gone. Today, the ordinary Singaporean faces sophisticated commercial machinery engineered to extract compliance in revenue through confusion, inertia and sometimes even fear. The CPFTA was not designed for this world. It is falling short today and Singaporeans are paying the price.
I will address two dimensions to this failure: first, the deceptive commercial practices that quietly train our wallets of everyday consumers; and second, the physical predation targeting our most vulnerable and destroying their retirement savings.
First, deceptive commercial practices. Long part of the playbook of usual suspects, like telecommunications companies (telcos) and gyms, the CCS has already demonstrated that such misconduct is spreading to other industries, like direct-to-consumer brands and e-commerce.
In August 2024, CCS took action against Sterra, a water filter brand that falsely claimed that Singapore's tap water was unsafe to drink and sold products marketed as being manufactured in Korea and Singapore when they were in fact manufactured in China. Last December, CCS acted against PRISM+ for fake countdown timers on their website that served no technical function and simply reset to zero; and against COURTS for silently adding unsolicited products to customers' shopping carts. COURTS knew about this in 2024 but they made no changes until the CCS intervened.
These are just the headline cases, but beyond them, quieter practices extract money daily from consumers: fixed-term contracts advertised at introductory rates that apply only to the first few months, deliberately creating the impression that the full contract is cheaper than it really is; trials that convert silently to fully paid subscriptions with no active consent; and third-party services bundled into telco packages, like Netflix subscriptions, free for three months and then cancellable only by navigating a maze designed specifically to outlast the consumer's patience.
Each year, CASE and the CCS, between them, receive 40 to 50 complaints about such cases. This is just the tip of the iceberg and many similar tactics abound.
The Government has convened a Consumer Protection Review Panel last March. I welcome this and I look forward to its findings. But I also want to add my perspective about what I see as most urgent.
One, any advertised price for fixed-term subscription must reflect the average cost across the full contract term. A promotional rate that applies only part of the term cannot be used as the headline figure. Two, we should ask for explicit active consent before any trial converts to a paid subscription. Silence is not consent. Three, we should enforce contractual symmetry. If it is one click to sign up, it should be one click to cancel. Four, we should empower the CCS with direct administrative powers like the UK's Competition and Markets Authority, which can levy fines of up to 10% of global annual revenue for consumer law breaches without going to Court.
Today, many companies behave well, but some bad actors act with impunity until they are taken to task. We need to give the CCS stronger teeth to tackle their bad behaviour. Voluntary compliance agreements after the fact are not deterrence.
Deceptive commercial practices drain wallets, but what I turn to now is worse – physical, face-to-face predatory behaviour that has cost some Singaporeans their retirement savings entirely.
CASE's February 2026 report recorded a 76% surge in beauty industry complaints last year, with consumers losing over $2.1 million.
Consider what happened at a hair salon chain, where an elderly man came in for an $8 haircut. Midway through it, a staff member showed him images on a monitor and told him his scalp was haemorrhaging although no scanning device was ever used. His personal identification number (PIN) was entered into the payment machine while his payment total was covered. He left having paid nearly $1,000 for treatments he never consented to.
Another chain of beauty salons – 53 complaints, exceeding $980,000 in total. In one case, a single consumer was charged at least $370,000. More than 40% of complainants were aged 60 and above.
Finally, Nail Palace. Its managing director was sentenced to four months' imprisonment in September 2024 – but note this – for contempt of Court, for failing to notify customers of injunctions against the chain, but not for the original predatory behaviour. That was handled as a civil matter throughout. The gap in the law is precisely what must be closed.
So, this is my final ask: I invite MTI to consider working with the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Attorney-General's Chambers to examine criminalising severe predatory sales tactics that are directed at vulnerable people. France's consumer code already does this. The \"abus de faiblesse\", abuse of weakness crime, carries up to three years imprisonment for exploiting a consumer's age, illness or psychological vulnerability. The UK's consumer protection legislation similarly expressly prohibits aggressive commercial practices, with penalties extending up to two years imprisonment.
Chairman, when a business confines a vulnerable senior in a room, manufactures a medical scare and then extracts their life savings through coercion or psychological tactics, the law must have a name for that and consequences to match.
Dr Neo Kok Beng (Nominated Member): Mr Chairman, I would like to declare that I have innovation studios which create and invest in technology and innovation ventures for the global market.
We are actually living in a very exciting time, with lots of disruptive innovations and technology. The question is how we in Singapore explore and exploit such opportunities.
If we look at the, let us say, air taxi market that I am involved in, you can see that there are, on NASDAC or NYSE, companies that are worth between about $8 billion and $16 billion in valuations, but they have not sold a single craft. They have pre-orders, but they have not actually sold a single craft. So, they are pre-commercialisation, but the market recognise the opportunities and fund them.
Do we have such an exchange in Singapore? I think that is the big question. For technology companies and especially new ventures, really, we need to find a different formula. If you look up north, a little bit further, in Hong Kong, they have the pre-commercialisation listing rules for biomedical under the listing 18A rules or the 18C rules, which is specialist technology companies.
We can learn a little bit from that, but they cater for a bigger market.
In Singapore, we have lots of startups, technology ventures resulting from the universities' research, and also from the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), from our research institutes. There are also a lot of AI innovation opportunities from the private sector. The question is always a gap, the gap between the people that are looking for money and the people looking for exit from the investment. So, they are all staring at each other. Who is going to move first? That is where the pre-commercialisation stage funding is required for all these technology ventures.
I would like to propose that we close this gap. That for technology ventures that are globally oriented and leadership driven, g-o-l-d, I will call it these gold nuggets that we have. And I believe we have a lot of gold nuggets. My doctorate is in innovation. I have trained a lot of innovative teams in the universities. So, how to bring these gold nuggets to become actually a big gold bar? I believe that our exchange can be structured for special listing rules for the technology ventures in the size of about $50 to $100 to 150 million, giving them the special access so that the —
The Chairman: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Sir, micro and small enterprises are the backbone of our community. They provide economic stability for the nation and livelihoods for many workers. However, their economic contribution remains disproportionately low. They employ 45% of our workers but contribute only 11% of nominal value added. This productivity gap translates into lower salaries. These businesses can afford to pay their workers.
ASME has observed that the current classification of SMEs is too broad. A micro enterprise with 10 employees and $1 million in revenue, faces fundamentally different hurdles compared to a medium-sized company with 200 staff and $100 million in turnover. By grouping them together, we risk applying one size fits all solutions that may not reach the smallest players.
Would the Government adopt ASME's suggestion to delineate micro enterprises and SMEs in national policy-making and data collection? Tailoring grants and other assistance to the specific operational realities of each tier will make Government support more effective for them. ASME estimates that a 10% uplift in the value added of this segment could translate to an additional $6.5 billion dollars in annual gross domestic product (GDP), equivalent to more than one percent of growth. Focusing more on these micro and small enterprises is a significant opportunity to lift the wages of many Singaporeans.
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Chairman, I would like to speak on SME transformation. SMEs employ seven out of 10 workers in Singapore and form the backbone of our economy. In supporting transformation, we must recognise that many SMEs are family-run businesses facing generational succession and ownership transitions. This is not only a governance issue. It is an economic and cultural one.
Business transformation often cannot progress meaningfully until ownership structures are stabilised. Where succession is unclear or governance frameworks remain informal, it becomes difficult to invest in digitalisation, expansion or strategic pivots. Transformation requires clarity of leadership and ownership.
I therefore suggest that our SME transformation framework integrate succession planning and family ownership transition as core components of enterprise upgrading.
Cultural nuances also shape how ethnic family businesses approach governance and decision-making. This was evident during a Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) of Finance, Trade and Industry engagement with the Singapore Malay Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SMCCI), where heritage businesses shared how cultural norms influence succession and continuity. Different communities may view succession and professionalisation differently, and a one-size-fits-all model may not be effective. Enterprise Singapore could deepen engagement with ethnic chambers such as the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SCCCI), the SMCCI, and the Singapore Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SICCI) to support more tailored approaches.
Enterprise Singapore could also expand support to cover family ownership transition, including grants for succession planning, governance restructuring and ownership transfers. Institutions such as Singapore Management University’s Business Families Institute can partner with chambers to develop tailored succession playbooks.
As more heritage SMEs reach generational handover points, a smooth ownership transition is critical to preserving long-established enterprises. By integrating succession support into SME transformation policies, we can strengthen long-term enterprise resilience while retaining the cultural and social value that these businesses contribute to Singapore.
Mr Lee Hong Chuang (Jurong East-Bukit Batok): Chairman, about 70% of our Singapore workforce, approximately 2.5 million people are employed under the SMEs. SMEs are the backbones of our economies. This is not a small number. When SMEs do well, Singaporeans do well. If no Singaporean should be left behind, then I think no SME should be left behind too. Instead, they should stay ahead.
Much has been said about supporting individuals across different groups in the past few days. These are important sharing and decisions, yet, beyond assistance, many Singaporeans are asking fundamental questions. Where are the good jobs and how do we secure them?
Singaporeans want opportunities and not depend on just Government handouts. They ask not for a fish, but for the skill and an environment that can allow them to fish for themselves. For that to happen, our SMEs must thrive. I believe strong enterprises create good jobs. When a company grows, workers grow with them.
Over the years, many schemes have been introduced to support SMEs. The issue today is often not about availability, but the ease of accessibility.
Many SME owners are fully occupied in their daily operations. They do not have the bandwidth to navigate multiple schemes. Firms with stronger administrative support navigate the system easier. Smaller enterprises, often those who need the most help may not even know where to begin. This is not about unwillingness. It is about bandwidth and capability.
Perhaps the next step is to make the access to support the more proactive and intelligent. When an SME logs into a Government portal, whether it is for a licence, grant or financing, could there be an integrated AI assistant that understand the firms' profiles and suggest relevant programmes and schemes automatically? Using secure login data, such a system could guide business owners in real time and outline the next step clearly. This would simplify navigation and help ensure that no SME is left behind simply because it lacks time or administrative capability.
Chairman, let me share a simple analogy. For a seed to grow into a healthy and strong tree, sunlight alone is never sufficient. It needs fertile soil and a stable environment. In our economics, we can imagine enterprises are the seeds and Singapore business environment is like the soil. The rule of law, financial stability and open trade networks form the foundation for growth. On this foundation, institutions play distinct roles. For example, the Economic Development Board (EDB) shapes the strategy direction. Enterprise Singapore supports the upgrading and capability building. The National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) advances job redesign and skill upgrading so worker grows alongside with businesses.
The question is not whether support exists today, but whether it operates in sync. First about execution. This year's Budget provide tax rebates and expansion support. This comes timely, yet businesses ask, are the processes clear? Are the timelines predictable? For many SMEs, complexity itself becomes a barrier. If the soil is stable, business will take root. If the pathway is clear, they will grow.
Second, practical AI adoption. AI must deliver productivity and not just promise. Enterprises care about outcomes, reducing administrative work, improving responsiveness and strengthening data management. Our objective must reflect real productivity gains and not cost inflation.
Third, coordination within agency. When strategy investments are brought into Singapore, are local enterprises supported to build capability at the same time? When company upgrades system, can job redesign and skill upgrading move together? If policies too, are better aligned, businesses will spend less time navigating schemes and more time transforming.
Chairman, enterprise upgrading and AI adoption are a matter of national competitiveness and not just for SMEs. As our region accelerates transformation, Singapore must ensure that our SMEs are active participants and not bystanders. The Budget has set the direction. Our task is to keep the soil fertile so that our enterprise, the seed of our economy can grow steadily and strongly. In Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] SMEs are the foundation of the economy. Enterprises are like seeds and the environment is like soil. When enterprises are able to develop, the people benefit. The key to policy lies in ensuring that supported projects and initiatives truly take root, work in synergy and operate efficiently.
If I could describe this in one sentence, it would be: \"Strengthen enterprises to invigorate business; invigorate business to benefit the people.\" That is to say, when we strengthen enterprises, we also invigorate business, and when business is invigorated, the people will benefit.
Mr Ng Shi Xuan (Sembawang): Chairman, besides an income and wealth gap, I would like to explore a third gap, the enterprise ecosystem gap. A strong business ecosystem requires both MNC investments and a resilient SME base. They are two sides of the same coin. When MNCs grow, they bring capital and technology. But our SMEs must be able to grow alongside them and support them locally and regionally.
Today, many MNCs are incentivised to invest heavily in AI and robotics. While this strengthens our economy, it also accelerates disruption across supply chains. With the recent changes to our Preferential Additional Registration Fee rebates, let me use example of a car workshop.
With EVs, there is no engine oil change and fewer mechanical components. Maintenance cycles are longer. These shifts recurring revenue patterns and affects the broader after-market value chain, from workshops to parts distributors. At the same time, newer EVs require proprietary diagnostic software. Independent workshops may lack authorised access or compatible systems. This results in a technology and access issue.
On the other hand, many workshops are not yet using AI tools for diagnostics, inventory planning or cash flow management. They face restricted access on one end and slow digital adoption on the other. This could create an enterprise ecosystem gap where larger firms surge ahead due to technology and skill, while smaller enterprises struggle to keep up with access, tools and capabilities.
One practical way to narrow this gap is to offer SMEs a year-long subscription to enterprise AI tools, similar to the approach I suggested in my muted Ministry of Finance (MOF) cut. This lowers the barrier to adoption and allows business owners to experiment, learn and integrate AI into daily operations before committing long term.
As we push ahead with AI and advanced industry, we must ensure our SMEs are equipped to adapt alongside the industries we are transforming.
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Chairman, on helping our SMEs grow and thrive. Singapore is not short of schemes. We have advisory support, such as CTO-as-a-Service; intermediaries like the Singapore Business Federation, SME Centres and ASME; platforms like GoBusiness; the Productivity Solutions Grant and the Enterprise Development Grant, even AI Centres of Excellence.
On paper, the ecosystem looks comprehensive. SMEs can be segmented by digital maturity and sector. They can access advice on human resources, marketing, finance and operations. Yet outcomes remain uneven. Many SMEs are still struggling; not just to transform but to stay afloat.
From industry conversations, three structural challenges emerge.
First, bandwidth. Owners are consumed by rent, manpower, compliance and cashflow issues. Transformation requires time and focus. Many simply do not have that headspace.
Second, capability depth. Diagnostics can identify gaps, but implementation requires managers who can redesign workflows, integrate systems, manage change and measure returns. Many SMEs lack this internal execution capability.
Third, structural fragility in certain sectors. In F&B especially, margins are thin and volatility is high. Entry barriers remain however relatively low, yet closure rates are high. Many enter without fully appreciating labour intensity, rental volatility and tight margins. Even with grants, a fragile cost base makes transformation daunting.
Sir, another perspective is this: not all SMEs are equally positioned to transform at the same pace. Some are willing but lack capability. Some are capable but constrained by structure. Some may not yet be ready.
In a resource-constrained environment, should we more deliberately prioritise SMEs that are willing and able, or potentially able, to scale, to innovate and uplift productivity meaningfully? Can we develop clearer readiness indicators, so that support is more disciplined and catalytic? At the same time, how do we avoid leaving behind firms that require capability-building before they can qualify for deeper transformation support?
We have built platforms, provided grants and created segmentation tools. Yet the implementation gap persists.
So, I ask: do we need more precise industry segmentation, not just by size or digital maturity, but by structural conditions? Are we investing enough in building internal execution capability and upgrading the capability of intermediaries who advise SMEs? Can we introduce measures that free up leadership bandwidth for strategic upgrading? Are we confronting structural fragility in sectors like F&B, so new entrants can assess their viability more realistically? And most importantly, how do we help SMEs move beyond digital adoption to sustained, measured productivity growth, especially those with intent and potential to compete?
In the AI era, survival and superficial adoption are not enough. Transformation must be real. So, how will the Government help bridge this implementation gap, so that our SMEs can truly thrive?
Ms Tin Pei Ling (Marine Parade-Braddell Heights): Chairman, Singapore SMEs face distinct challenges alongside day‑to‑day operational constraints and pressures to transform, they must internationalise because our domestic market is limited.
Rental and manpower are among their largest cost components. Compliance burden is also a concern, and I had raised this in my cut to MOF last week.
Beyond general labour shortages, firms increasingly need digitally skilled talent who can deploy AI to raise productivity, automate routine tasks and scale operations. They also require coherent enterprise‑level AI strategies and rapid transformation to stay competitive in this AI era. The measures in Budget 2026 are therefore welcome.
I just have one question on this particular point. Learning from past experiences administering grants and credits, how will the Government ensure that financial support and eligibility criteria for tax deductions are precisely targeted, so that funds are spent effectively to create the intended impact. In Chinese, “钱用在刀口上”.
On rentals, there had been speculations that foreign capital inflows are pushing up commercial rents and crowding out local operators. Notably, based on the Parliamentary reply by Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong in January 2026, China is the second largest owner of retail businesses in Singapore. Even though Chinese owners account for only 3% of retail businesses, the perception of displacement cannot be ignored, and this can affect community sentiment and our unique Singapore “personality”.
What steps will MTI take to ensure local SMEs remain the anchor in Singapore? Can the Ministry consider targeted measures, such as rental relief schemes, tenancy support for heritage and neighbourhood retailers, incentives for landlords to prioritise local tenants or co‑investment platforms that enable local businesses to secure long‑term premises?
Finally, SMEs need help managing rising costs and reaching beyond our shores. Will MTI expand programmes to help these SMEs further optimise costs in areas, such as group procurement, energy efficiency grants, shared services, market access and trade facilitation?
Mr Azhar Othman (Nominated Member): Chairman, I would like to declare that I am the executive chairman of Enercon Asia, a company with presence in seven countries.
In light of the tariffs imposed by the US on various countries, including Singapore, it is crucial for the Ministry to explore potential partnerships with other nations and develop additional Free Trade Agreements (FTAs).
The importance of diversifying our business relationships cannot be overstated. It would be beneficial for the Ministries to provide guidance on which countries present valuable opportunities for our businesses to establish connections and a presence. As a small nation, Singapore must seek assistance and explore opportunities globally to thrive in the current economic landscape.
Mr Victor Lye (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Chairman, first let me declare my interest as chief executive officer of an investment firm and advisor to companies investing in Singapore and other parts of the world.
During the Budget debate, I spoke about trust as Singapore’s competitive advantage in a fragmenting world. We need to expand our economic space, to change from a GDP to a gross national product (GNP) mindset, linking up in a network with cities, their hinterlands and their peoples who are aligned with us. Today, I propose four practical ways to shift towards becoming a networked economy.
Shift one, let us measure economic value created beyond our borders. For decades, we measured GDP, activity within Singapore’s borders.
But over the years, more and more Singaporeans and firms operate and create value overseas. We should measure their overseas activity, their value added, to reflect our actual economic network strength. I suggest that MTI develops GNP indicators to track value created globally by Singapore and Singaporeans overseas.
Shift two: let us encourage Singaporean firms to hunt as a pack overseas. A good place to start is the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone (SEZ). We should view the SEZ as an extra lung, where our SMEs can grow and thrive.
How? I offer four suggestions.
Suggestion one – position Singapore as the trusted gateway to the SEZ. Let us take a proactive approach in marketing the Johor-Singapore SEZ. As I shared in my Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) Committee of Supply (COS) cut, foreign policy can support our economic effort to expand our economic space as a networked economy. We need to work closely, more closely, with our Malaysian counterparts. This can deepen interdependence and create stronger ties for mutual benefit.
It will need a calibration of the mutual trust, given our past experience. But the strategic direction is clear from the perspective of any inward foreign investor. Johor and Singapore can and will play a synergistic role for them. Singapore anchors the trust-dependent core – headquarters governance, treasury, IP, data, compliance and legal, while the Johor hinterland provides scalable economic space. We in Singapore capture the trust premium here, while unlocking cost and space constraints that we have right next door as one integrated operating model.
So, my question is, how can MTI direct EDB, Enterprise Singapore and other economic agencies in coordination with MFA to package and to market a two-side deployment proposition, where inward investors or anchors enter Singapore through Singapore as the trusted gateway and deploy into the Johor-Singapore SEZ?
The second suggestion – how can we organise a plug-and-play SME ecosystem? Singapore's effort to bring inward investments into the SEZ should become business opportunities for our local SMEs. To achieve this, we can structure a SEZ supplier programme where we, for instance, can identify the inward investors, input requirements and standards. We pre-qualify SMEs who can meet such standards and finally, we match them to these anchors or inward investors.
Suggestion three – let us develop sectoral investment packages. These can be identified in certain strategic industries, for example, manufacturing and logistics, digital and data services, food production and coaching, businesses that can take advantage of Johor's strength and Singapore's complementarities. Each package can include shared infrastructure options, regulatory playbooks, talent and professional services support and a directory of Singapore SME suppliers.
Suggestion four – publish a Johor-Singapore SEZ outcome scorecard. MTI can track outcomes, such as the number of two-side deployments across Singapore and the SEZ by sector. We can look at the number of Singapore SMEs matched successfully with inward investors, and we can also measure incremental SME revenue as a result of using such complementarities across Johor and Singapore.
And let me continue with shift three, creating good jobs overseas for Singaporeans. Mr Chairman, there are young and mid-career Singaporeans who may not be aware of the opportunities in the region or some who are unable to price in the risk of working overseas. So, I suggest considering: one, curating overseas job placements for Singaporeans from entry to senior roles. Two, we can offer incentives for firms to rotate staff regionally so that it becomes part of their career development.
Three, we can provide support and flexible childcare or education pathways for Singaporeans returning home. Shift four: towards a network economy, developing artificial intelligence (AI) as our trusted Infrastructure. Singapore's advantage is not about adopting AI but being the most trusted place to deploy AI.
For example, regional ports are adopting AI independently. But who sets the interoperable standards? Who provides the trusted platform where competing ports can share data for network optimisation?
In cross-border finance, each financial institution is building its own AI infrastructure. But who can offer the coordination layer for these tools to work together so that capital can flow efficiently? Singapore can. How? By developing and leading effective AI governance and secure data exchange frameworks. In a fragmented world, the trusted coordinator becomes invaluable.
In closing, Mr Chairman, MTI, MFA, the Ministry of Manpower and our economic agencies are doing a fine job. However, going forward, in this very fragmenting world, we need to change the way we look at how we grow our economy.
I have shared four shifts: from measuring domestic to tracking global value; from individual expansion to ecosystem; from a locally-bound workforce to an overseas one; and finally, AI as trusted infrastructure. With these, we become a networked economy.
Ms Elysa Chen (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Chairman, over the past 30 years, many MNCs have based their Asia Pacific headquarters in Singapore, positioning us as a gateway for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). In a volatile global environment, economic connection is more critical than ever. Regional collaboration with ASEAN, including initiatives, like the Johor-Singapore SEZ, has unlocked competitive and strategic advantages for all parties.
In my Budget speech, I shared that four in five Singapore SMEs plan to expand overseas. Yet only 3.1% of our resident workforce has worked overseas full-time for at least six months. Many businesses and workers lack experience operating beyond Singapore. This may deter regional expansion.
Schemes, like the Enterprise Development Grant, help defray the costs of setting up businesses abroad. Will MTI consider strengthening such support to provide smoother, lower-risk entry into foreign markets? On the manpower front, will MTI expand the Global Ready Talent Programme or explore grants to co-fund Singaporeans' relocation costs within ASEAN?
If not, can MTI share how it plans to build capacity in three areas: first, increasing international firms' readiness to appoint Singaporeans to regional roles; second, strengthening business leaders' ability to operate in diverse markets; and third, encouraging Singaporeans to relocate for regional opportunities?
If Singapore is to remain a gateway to ASEAN, we must not only host regional headquarters, we must raise a generation of Singaporeans ready to lead beyond our shores.
Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member): Chairman, in a tighter Singapore, domestic scale alone will not sustain enterprise growth. For Singapore businesses, internationalisation is essential for long-term competitiveness and resilience.
The Middle East conflict that unfolded over the weekend reflects how quickly geopolitical conditions can shift. Energy markets react, insurance premiums adjust, shipping routes are reassessed and payment and compliance risks increase. In such an environment, uncertainty can cause firms to hesitate.
How will MTI continue to send a strong and consistent message that despite heightened geopolitical risks, Singapore firms must press on with internationalisation and that the Government will stand behind them as they do so?
At the same time, we must recognise internationalisation risk is not uniform. It varies sharply by market. Parts of Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America often carry elevated political, regulatory and receivable risks. Working capital cycles are longer. Payment discipline can also be less predictable. Could MTI consider differentiating internationalisation support not only by firm size, but also by market risk profile, with enhanced working capital guarantees, political risk coverage or expanded risk-sharing mechanisms in higher-risk corridors?
Second, many overseas projects today are too large or too complex for individual SMEs. Procurement frameworks favour scale, track record and integrated capability. Encouraging consortium-led bids, enabling firms to \"hunt as a pack\", would allow complementary Singapore companies to pool capabilities, share risk and compete for projects none could secure alone. Could existing schemes be restructured more explicitly to support consortium-based international bids, including shared financing and coordinated market entry?
Finally, as firms from Northeast Asia and Europe increasingly view Singapore as a gateway into Southeast Asia, our ecosystem must deepen its regional fluency – regulatory expertise, multilingual advisory capability and strong in-market partnerships anchored through our trade associations and chambers. We must strengthen not just financing support, but market intelligence, corridor expertise and in-market execution platforms.
In a more uncertain world, the answer is not retreat. It is a calibrated expansion backed by credible risk-sharing and a confident ecosystem —
The Chairman: Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh.
Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh (Nominated Member): Thank you, Chair. Budget 2026 positions AI, alongside strategic capabilities such as quantum, advanced manufacturing and space, as critical to Singapore's ability to thrive in a changed world. The thrust is clear – upgrade firms, reskill workers and build new growth engines.
That is the right direction. But transformation will not be fully realised without our entrepreneurs.
Technological shifts do not only upgrade incumbents, they create new markets. AI lowers startup overheads. Advanced manufacturing and deep tech open new value chains. As we build capabilities within firms, we must also enable more Singaporeans to build new ventures around these emerging domains.
Let me raise three areas.
First, de-risk entrepreneurial participation. About half of new firms do not survive beyond five years. Fewer than 1% become unicorns. When people see these statistics, the instinctive response is, \"It's too risky. We don't want to try.\"
But if too few are willing to try, the economy suffers. Innovation slows. New growth engines do not emerge. To bridge that gap, we must reduce the perception that entrepreneurship carries a permanent career penalty. Entrepreneurship should be normalised as another step in a career journey, not a make-or-break endpoint. It should be seen as part of lifelong learning – a period of experimentation, skill development and value creation.
May I ask the Ministry, beyond capital incentives, how are we strengthening pathways that allow Singaporeans – from fresh graduates to mid-career professionals – to venture into entrepreneurship and return to employment without stigma or structural disadvantage? After all, research shows that the average founder of high-growth firms are in their early to mid-40s. Experience and networks matter, especially in complex sectors. Small nations, like ours, cannot afford permanent talent loss from temporary setbacks.
Second, we can convert national missions into startup growth. As sectoral missions unlock opportunities in AI, manufacturing, connectivity and healthcare, how do we ensure Singapore-based startups are meaningfully plugged into these platforms? Can procurement pathways, pilot projects and structured partnerships be strengthened so that startups led by Singapore-based founders can validate and scale? In frontier sectors, such as quantum and space, can cross-agency sandbox models support experimentation and co-learning while accelerating deployment?
If we get this right, national missions can catalyse local venture growth and not just enterprise upgrading.
Third, we need to anchor long-term value. It is one thing to grow new ventures here, it is quite another to ensure that as they scale globally, they remain anchored in Singapore. If strategic decision-making, IP and leadership functions relocate elsewhere in pursuit of capital and customers, we risk losing gains in control, capital formation and ecosystem spillovers.
The expansion of the Startup SG Equity fund and the Equity Market Development Programme (EQDP) are all important steps, but my question is, as more Singapore companies scale globally, how do we ensure leadership, IP ownership and value creation remain anchored here so that —
The Chairman: Mr Ng Shi Xuan.
Mr Ng Shi Xuan: Chairman, I would like to speak on three things: funding, founders and talent for our startups.
With the additional $1 billion injection into our Startup SG Equity, I would like to ask MTI what specific gap we are trying to close? Is the constraint today early-stage formation or is it at the growth stage, where companies have product-market fit but struggle to scale regionally? Is it a shortage of later-stage capital or is it a lack of sector depth in areas, such as deep tech and industrial solutions?
I would appreciate clarity on how MTI has diagnosed this gap and how the capital will be deployed? Are we crowding in experienced regional and global growth funds? Are we co-investing alongside operators who can help companies to expand beyond Singapore? We should also avoid concentrating public funds within the same small pool of startups. Co-investment should widen participation, deepen sector capabilities and bring in new founders and new markets.
Beyond funding, I would like to check on the Startup SG Founder scheme. I heard that one of the founders must be a first-time founder to get this scheme. But we know that startups fail due to a myriad of reasons. In the spirit of supporting and encouraging entrepreneurship, I would like to check if this criterion can be reviewed?
On talents, hiring a full-time chief AI officer can be costly for early-stage firms. This is distinct from the chief technology officer (CTO) advisory schemes. A CTO builds the product. A chief AI officer shapes data strategy, model development and responsible AI use across the organisation. Could we explore a chief AI officer as a service model, allowing experienced AI leaders to support multiple startups so that they can deploy AI properly and scale with confidently?
Funding, talents and founders help companies to grow.
The Chairman: Deputy Prime Minister Gan.
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Gan Kim Yong): Mr Chairman, let me thank all Members who have spoken on MTI's COS.
Last year, Singapore's economy grew by 5%, performing better than expected despite a challenging global environment. At the same time, we must be clear-eyed. Singapore is entering a new phase in our economic journey. The rules that allowed Singapore to prosper for decades have fundamentally\tchanged. We face a more complex global environment, marked by heightened great-power competition, rising protectionism and a more fragmented global order.
The United States (US) Supreme Court has struck down the reciprocal tariffs that were imposed last year and the US Administration has since replaced it with a new Section 122 tariff of 10% for up to 150 days. President Trump has also announced that he intends to raise it to 15%. The details are not there yet. There is still considerable uncertainty about how the tariff will evolve over time.
We are working with the Singapore Economic Resilience Taskforce (SERT) tripartite members to provide information to and gather feedback from businesses and workers to help them navigate these uncertainties.
These developments exemplify the unpredictable and uncertain global trading environment that we must now navigate. That is not all. Over the weekend, the conflict in the Middle East escalated, with the US and Israel launching an attack on Iran, and Iran retaliating by counterattacking Israel and US' bases in the region. The Strait of Hormuz, which is a key shipping route for crude oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG), has been closed.
In the near term, this could result in an increase in global energy prices. Depending on how protracted the conflict is, higher energy prices could lead to higher costs for businesses and consumers and weigh on the global and Singapore economies. We are monitoring the developments closely and will reassess our GDP and inflation forecasts if necessary.
Major structural forces are also reshaping industries, businesses and jobs.
AI and automation are transforming how value is created and how work is organised. The global push to decarbonisation is also changing industrial processes, influencing investment patterns and impacting relative competitiveness.
Together with our demographic constraints that I spoke about last week, sustaining growth and creating good jobs will become more challenging. Yet even in this more difficult environment, there are good opportunities for Singapore as a trusted, knowledge-driven and connected hub.
This is why the Government set up the Economic Strategy Review (ESR) to take a hard, honest look at how Singapore must reset our economic strategy. We will have to work harder and smarter, be creative and take calculated risks, and explore bold solutions to reach the higher end of our GDP trend-growth of 2% to 3% per annum, on average, over the next decade and create good jobs.
Let me outline broadly five strategic thrusts and my colleagues in MTI will elaborate later. First, we will establish and deepen our leadership in key growth sectors, while pushing the frontier into new areas of growth. As our economy matures, growth and good jobs can no longer come from scale alone. Growth must increasingly come from depth – by establishing and deepening global leadership in sectors where Singapore already has strong foundations.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about our plans for the advanced manufacturing, trust-based services and frontier sectors. Singapore is already a global node in advanced manufacturing sectors, such as semiconductors, medical products, specialty chemicals and aerospace, which contribute significantly to our economy and provide good jobs.
We want to secure and extend our leadership in these sectors – we will step up investments in AI, automation and digital technologies to raise productivity, improve quality and reliability, and become more flexible and resilient. As factories become more automated and data-driven, demand will grow for skilled jobs, such as automation and robotics engineers, process engineers, data specialists and advanced equipment technicians, that command higher wages.
We will also focus research and development (R&D) resources to sharpen our technological edge, shorten innovation cycles and help firms move ideas faster – from the lab to the factory floor and into the market. In parallel, we will accelerate the adoption of low-carbon and resource-efficient technologies, so that our industries remain competitive as the world transitions to a low-carbon future. By reinforcing these strengths, we will build deep, competitive ecosystems that anchor high-value activities here and support good, skilled jobs for Singaporeans.
Beyond manufacturing, we are also extending our lead in modern services. In this volatile and uncertain world, trust has become the most sought-after asset. Our trust premium has enabled us to establish ourselves as a global hub for finance, capital and IP. We will build on this to develop Singapore as a global hub for trust-based services, such as risk advisory, cybersecurity, AI assurance and Testing, Inspection and Certification. This will create new opportunities in modern services.
Even as we deepen our existing strengths in advanced manufacturing and modern services, we must also push the frontier into new areas of growth, such as quantum, decarbonisation technologies and space-related industries. As these industries grow, they will open up new career opportunities for Singaporeans.
Taken together, these will deepen what we already do well in advanced manufacturing and modern services, while creating new engines and expand Singapore's growth frontier, and secure high-quality jobs for Singaporeans.
Second, we must sustain a dynamic and vibrant enterprise ecosystem, spanning multinational corporations, high-growth companies and a vibrant start-up community. Leading MNCs, both local and foreign, will continue to be a core pillar of our economy. They bring scale, advanced technologies, global networks and high-quality jobs. We will continue to work with MNCs to anchor high-value activities here, including R&D, advanced manufacturing, regional and global headquarters functions, and strategic roles.
At the same time, the next phase of growth will increasingly come from a new generation of emerging enterprises – growth-stage companies that have yet to establish themselves as a leading MNC but have demonstrated both the potential and ambition to become future industry leaders.
We must be prepared to take some risks to support such promising enterprises by providing them with a trusted base to operate from, and scale to international markets. One such company is Workato, an enterprise software firm that helps businesses automate workflows and integrate systems across their operations. Workato's Asia Pacific revenue has increased 10-fold over the past five years, with a customer base of more than 12,000 companies across sectors, such as manufacturing, financial services and healthcare.
Singapore can serve as a strategic base for Workato's global expansion, anchoring product development, AI innovation and regional leadership here, while creating high-value opportunities for Singaporeans and strengthening our talent pipeline.
I agree with Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh that anchoring and partnering companies, like Workato, in Singapore at an early stage of their growth is important as it would allow us to shape where strategic HQ decisions are made, where core capabilities are built and where long-term value is created. As these companies grow from Singapore, they will create new roles here in areas, such as R&D, product management, marketing and business development.
EDB will step up efforts to identify and anchor such companies, working closely with leading venture capital and private equity partners. We will provide bespoke, end-to-end support, such as market access assistance, regulatory facilitation and access to ready-to-use facilities, to help these companies anchor in Singapore and grow their presence here.
Done well, this will allow us to capture long-term economic value, strengthen our pipeline of leading enterprises and reinforce Singapore's position as a trusted base for globally leading companies to be here and to scale. We will not just be a landing pad, but also a launching pad for potential global companies.
Alongside this, we will continue to sustain the vibrancy of our start-up community and foster an entrepreneurial culture where people dare to dream and take risks. Minister of State Alvin Tan will share more on our plans for our startups. By sustaining dynamic and vibrant enterprise ecosystems, we will reinforce Singapore's position as a trusted and connected base for global business and ensure that our economy remains at the forefront of innovation and growth.
For our enterprises to raise productivity, upgrade capabilities and scale innovation faster than before, AI is the critical enabler. Our third thrust is therefore to establish Singapore as an AI leader, as well as an AI-empowered economy. We want to empower our companies to harness AI end-to-end, by redesigning business processes, embedding AI into core operations, developing proprietary applications, transforming workflows and upgrading jobs and skills.
To date, we have supported over 60 companies to establish AI Centres of Excellence. These are in-house teams focussed on developing and deploying AI solutions. We will take this further by launching a \"Champions of AI\" programme later this year. Under this programme, we will target a select group of Singapore-based companies with the ambition and commitment to make AI a core driver of productivity, innovation and growth. We will partner these companies to transform their businesses, by embedding AI across core operations, organisational processes and workforce practices.
This includes leadership and workforce training, as well as support to develop and execute AI transformation projects with clear and measurable business impact. These companies will also invest in retraining and upskilling their employees, enabling their workers to take on high-value AI-enabled job roles.
Let me give DBS as an example. AI has been embedded throughout the bank's operations, from customer engagement to risk management and operational efficiency. For instance, through personalised AI-driven nudges, DBS guides retail customers to make better investment and financial decisions. These customers saved twice as much, invested five times more and had nearly three times higher insurance coverage than those who did not.
In risk management, AI analyses millions of transactions daily to detect unusual patterns and intercept suspicious activity in real-time to better protect its customers. DBS has also deployed AI in institutional banking, reducing processing times for trade documentation by 60%. This helps businesses move faster, with greater certainty, especially in cross-border transactions.
DBS is equipping all 40,000 of its employees with foundational understanding and practical exposure to AI. It is also reskilling employees into new job roles that are being created through the integration of AI – for example, from customer service officers into AI agent monitoring managers and GenAI evaluators. AI has also provided some employees with the opportunity to move into new career pathways – for instance, from customer service roles into relationship management roles.
DBS' journey demonstrates how companies can deploy AI to enhance business value while strengthening their workforce. In 2025, DBS reported that economic value from its data analytics, AI and Machine Learning initiatives achieved a record of approximately $1 billion. AI champions are pathfinders. We will learn from their experiences, show the way forward and give other firms the confidence to move faster and deeper in their own AI journeys.
We also want to be an AI leader in the development, testing, deployment and scaling of AI. We will drive AI transformation at the sector level through AI Missions, starting with advanced manufacturing, connectivity, finance and healthcare – sectors where Singapore already has strong foundations.
For each Mission, we will work with the industry to define sharp, sector-specific problem statements in areas where AI can drive breakthrough transformations. Around each Mission, we will build full-stack ecosystems, including datasets, computing resources, regulatory sandboxes and solution providers. This will shorten the path from development to deployment and from testing to scale.
These Missions will generate demand for new skills, creating clusters of expertise anchored in Singapore. AI Missions serve as rallying flags to attract global AI talent and companies focused on real-world applications, mobilise whole-of-nation efforts across the Government and industry, and concentrate investments and enablers for greater impact.
We will also establish an AI Park as a focal point where talent, problem owners, researchers and resources can come together to create synergy and nurture a deep ecosystem. We already have Lorong AI; and we will now also build an entire \"Kampong\" – Kampong AI at One-North. \"Kampong AI\" will accelerate collaboration and serve as a centre of gravity for AI excellence.
These efforts – \"Champions of AI\", AI Missions and \"Kampong AI\" – will position Singapore as a place where AI solutions are built, proven and scaled, empowering firms across the economy and establishing AI leadership in key sectors.
Even as we grow our economy, our competitiveness will depend not only on innovation, but also on the ability of our businesses to adapt, reposition and transform. Firms will increasingly face the need to relook at how they operate. Business models that once worked well may no longer be viable under the current and future environment. In response, firms may need to pursue different pathways, transforming their business models, restructuring their operations or, where necessary, scale down or even exit specific products, services or parts of their operations.
Our next thrust is therefore to support our businesses to proactively and confidently navigate these transitions. Such adjustments are a normal and necessary part of economic renewal. But we recognise that the process can be difficult, challenging and sometimes, painful.
We will work closely with trade associations and chambers, enterprises and the Labour Movement to support firms as they go through these transitions, helping them assess their options early, restructure responsibly, pursue new growth opportunities, including exploring overseas markets and manage change in a way that strengthens long-term competitiveness and supports workers through the transition.
I agree with Mr Shawn Loh that with our small domestic economy, many growth opportunities lie beyond Singapore's shores. We want to help our companies to not only export their products and services, but also to expand and invest internationally. This will allow them to benefit from the growth of the global economy, while anchoring value, capabilities and leadership functions here in Singapore.
We will step up support for leading companies pursuing significant overseas ventures that may involve higher risks and capital outlay, especially in developing and emerging markets, but which give them a real and lasting foothold in key markets and value chains. In addition to growing their revenue and profits from overseas, these companies will bring value back to Singapore through better jobs, stronger demand for local capabilities and deeper integration into global growth opportunities.
I agree with Ms Elysa Chen and Mr Victor Lye on the importance of supporting and preparing our entrepreneurs and workers embarking on internationalisation. The Ministry of Manpower will share more on this.
We will also safeguard and expand our international economic space. Minister of State Ms Gan Siow Hwang will elaborate more on our plans to deepen and diversify our economic links with our trading partners.
Mr Chairman, the global environment will remain uncertain. The road ahead will not be easy. But Singapore has succeeded so far not by waiting for certainty, but by planning long term, acting early and moving ahead decisively.
The ESR has outlined our strategy going forward. Our five strategic thrusts build on our strengths, embrace new opportunities, harness technology, keep Singapore open and connected and support our people through change, every step of the way.
We will ensure growth must translate into good jobs for Singaporeans. Above all, our strategy is to give workers the confidence to adapt, businesses the ability to compete and every Singaporean a share in our progress and a stake in our future. If we continue to stay united, remain agile and nimble and keep investing in our people, Singapore will not just navigate change – we will shape it. [Applause.]
The Chairman: Mr Ng Shi Xuan.
Mr Ng Shi Xuan: Chairman, I declare my interest as a business owner that manufactures, assembles and distributes batteries locally. But I rise to speak about batteries not just as a product, but as an enabler for economic growth.
Singapore may not manufacture battery cells at scale, but that is not where our competitive advantage lies. Our strengths and high value segments, such as system design, integration, battery management software, safety engineering, testing, compliance and project management. These are areas where our Singapore-based companies can compete and differentiate themselves.
Today, many local companies are already working with IHLs and research institutes for technology capabilities, while leveraging regional manufacturing to produce competitive solutions. With the right positioning and partnerships, we can serve Southeast Asia and beyond.
Industry platforms, such as the Singapore Battery Consortium, have played a useful role in bringing in together the different players. I understand that National Research Foundation's (NRF's) funding for the Consortium will end on 31 March. May I seek clarification on whether support for this platform will continue and whether its scope can be expanded beyond research collaboration to include commercialisation support and market access.
Sir, I would also like to raise a practical trade issue affecting some of our companies. A handful of firms have shared that while they carry out substantial work in Singapore, including system integration, battery management software, safety engineering on compliance, this value-add may not always be fully reflected for trade purposes. I hope MTI can review whether our frameworks adequately recognise modern system integration and software-driven value-add in sectors like energy storage.
Batteries enable solar deployment, power data centres, electrified fleets and strengthen grid resilience. With the right policy support, Singapore can capture meaningful value in this growing sector.
Ms Tin Pei Ling: Chairman, secure energy and we secure our destiny. Beyond meeting Singapore's basic needs, our energy demand will rise as we digitalise and double down on AI.
Singapore's energy strategy has always been shaped by three structural realities: we have no natural resources, we face land constraints and we depend almost entirely on imported energy. These constraints constantly force us to balance the energy trilemma – security, sustainability and affordability.
Today, natural gas supplies roughly 95% of our electricity. It remains our most viable transition fuel, reliable and relatively lower in emissions. We have diversified supplies through pipeline gas and LNG imports and invested in critical infrastructure, such as our LNG terminal.
At the same time, we are accelerating decarbonisation. I welcome continued efforts to maximise solar deployment on rooftops and reservoirs, pilot regional electricity imports under the ASEAN Power Grid initiative and study hydrogen as a potential long‑term option. These are necessary steps.
Yet, our strategy must continue to evolve in the face of rising geopolitical uncertainty, supply chain fragmentation and intensifying climate pressures. The latest conflict involving Israel, US and Iran is a stark example. Disruptions to key shipping routes like the Strait of Hormuz where a large portion of LNG passes could send energy prices soaring.
I therefore pose several questions to the Ministry.
First, on energy security. As we deepen regional electricity imports, how is MTI assessing geopolitical concentration and supply risk? What plans are in place to diversify sources and build redundancy into our long-term energy import strategy?
Second, on supporting our national AI push. With rising demand for computing power and data centres, how is MTI working with local and international partners to ensure sufficient, sustainable power supply while promoting energy efficient digital infrastructure?
Third, on hydrogen. Hydrogen is promising for low carbon power and for hard to abate sectors, such as maritime and petrochemicals. But costs and supply chains remain challenging. When does the Ministry assess hydrogen to be commercially viable at scale for Singapore? How are we positioning ourselves early enough to shape, rather than follow, regional hydrogen supply chains? What support is being offered to firms and startups to deepen R&D and commercialise hydrogen technologies in Singapore?
Fourth, on carbon pricing and competitiveness. Singapore's carbon tax is expected to rise to signal decarbonisation. How does MTI balance competitiveness for trade exposed sectors with the need for credible carbon pricing? Are there plans to deepen international carbon market linkages or other measures to manage domestic cost pressures?
Fifth, on impact on Singaporeans and companies. How will the Ministry ensure households and businesses continue to access reliable energy at affordable prices during this transition?
Energy policy today is not just about keeping the lights on. It is about resilience in a fractured world and competitiveness in a low-carbon economy.
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui: Mr Chairman, I rise to speak on electricity, because in today’s AI-driven economy, energy is a strategic capability. Quite simply, no power, no go.
Earlier this month, I asked about Singapore's energy resilience and grid stability as renewable deployment grows and electrification accelerates. We are pursuing decarbonisation and digitalisation simultaneously and our electricity system must support both without compromising reliability or affordability.
First, on decarbonisation. Global energy prices are volatile. How do we keep Singapore's transition to low-carbon electricity credible despite price volatility? Investors need certainty, yet committed off-take arrangements may raise costs relative to market prices. How do we balance investment certainty with affordability? Clear policy signals will be critical to sustain private capital.
Second, on grid stability. Electricity demand is rising structurally. AI data centres, quantum computing, semiconductor fabrication, advanced manufacturing and transport electrification will significantly increase consumption, while imports and intermittent sources like solar diversify supply.
Intermittency now exists on both supply and demand. Electrified transport and fast-charging infrastructure will create concentrated demand peaks. What investments are we making in grid reinforcement, storage and system balancing to ensure reliability remains uncompromised? For sectors such as data centres and semiconductors, energy reliability is non-negotiable.
Third, on pricing and incentives. Electricity pricing does not always reflect supply variability. Could more dynamic pricing better align demand with peak renewable generation? A time-differentiated grid emissions factor could incentivise load shifting, reduce strain and support decarbonisation. Regulatory frameworks should also continue enabling private investment in renewable generation and energy storage.
Mr Chairman, energy resilience, affordability and decarbonisation are the foundations of national competitiveness. As Singapore advances as an AI and advanced manufacturing hub, our electricity system must remain stable, forward-looking and climate aligned, because energy security is the foundation of economic security.
The Chairman: Minister Dr Tan See Leng.
The Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Chairman, as the Deputy Prime Minister has highlighted, the rules that allowed Singapore to prosper have fundamentally changed. Technologies, especially AI, are rapidly disrupting industries. Climate change continues to accelerate, and its impact is affecting our way of life. How do we therefore seize opportunities in spite of all these challenges?
We will leverage science and technology to establish leadership in key growth sectors and push the frontier into new growth areas. We will also strive to establish Singapore as an AI leader, transforming our advanced manufacturing industry. Powering these efforts, at the core, is energy, which must be sustainable, secure, reliable and affordable.
To extend our lead in advanced manufacturing, we will continue to direct national-level R&D resources towards our key growth sectors.
Our Research, Innovation and Enterprise (RIE) 2025 investments have boosted the R&D capability and capacity of our economy as well as created good jobs. For manufacturing, the annual private sector R&D expenditure in 2023 was $4.3 billion, which is a 54% increase from 2016. Industry R&D jobs grew by 36% between 2016 and 2023 to more than 30,000, of which more than 70% were filled by locals.
One key growth sector is semiconductors. We have built strong R&D capabilities through past RIE investments, and we have anchored a total of more than $30 billion in investments from semiconductor companies, over the past four years. We will further invest $800 million to establish the RIE Flagship in Semiconductors, focusing on high-impact technology areas, such as Advanced Packaging and Advanced Photonics, which boost chip performance while cutting power use.
The Flagship will translate research into products and encourage more advanced R&D and manufacturing activities, creating good jobs in Singapore.
The Flagship will also bring together efforts under the National Semiconductor Translation and Innovation Centre (NSTIC). Since its launch in RIE2025, NSTIC has achieved several breakthroughs, including in high-speed data transmission and metalens fabrication. It has since attracted over 10 industry partners and has built a strong commercialisation pipeline.
Last year, the Deputy Prime Minister announced our investment in NSTIC (R&D Fab), which is our semiconductor R&D fabrication facility. It is on track to commence operations by 2027, and companies have shown strong interest in the facility’s collaboration space.
We will also invest $60 million in NSTIC (Power Electronics) to strengthen Singapore’s competitiveness in next-generation power electronics. Within a year, we aim to double the carrier mobility of silicon carbide technologies, enabling the potential development of smaller, but more efficient power systems. Use cases include extending the driving ranges of electric vehicles (EVs).
Another key growth sector is biomedical, which remains robust despite its inherent volatility. To boost sector growth, we announced two R&D translational platforms in 2024, namely the Nucleic Acid Therapeutics Initiative (NATi) and MedTech Catapult. These platforms are attracting global partners, they are uplifting local enterprises, and training talents to anchor high-value R&D activities and jobs in Singapore.
For example, MedTech Catapult is working with a local startup, Vivo Surgical, to develop its verification prototype to be ready for clinical studies, and has onboarded the company onto its venture acceleration programme.
Given the good progress of these platforms, we intend to scale them further under RIE2030.
Besides public sector efforts, the private sector also plays a crucial role in our innovation ecosystem. Through our Research and Innovation Scheme for Companies (RIS(C)), we have attracted substantive private research and innovation investments, building capabilities and creating high-value jobs for locals.
In the past five years, companies have committed more than $14 billion to research and innovation investments here; and it has created more than 12,000 jobs in research, development, and innovation roles. Again, with locals filling more than 70% of these positions. Some examples. Grab's Artificial Intelligence Centre of Excellence has hired around 50 people, while Evonik, the German chemicals giant, has hired over 100 researchers for its Asia Research Hub in Singapore.
Building on this, we will invest more than $3 billion in RIS(C) in RIE2030.
Beyond existing growth sectors, we will boldly pursue emerging technologies that can drive breakthroughs across our economy. One example is space technology, the “final frontier”, which is rapidly moving from science fiction to real-world applications.
Space technology is already used in our daily lives, powering navigation and connectivity. As technologies advance, as costs fall, smaller countries like Singapore can capture opportunities in the growing space economy. This can create good jobs for Singaporeans in areas such as engineering and data science, while enabling businesses to capture value from space-enabled services and applications.
One such opportunity is space-based Earth observation, which can be used in industries such as maritime, sustainability and finance. A local startup, Arkadiah Technology, is using satellite data in its partnership with a global agribusiness company – Golden Agri-Resources – to support digital measurement, reporting and verification. This enables more accurate carbon accounting of tropical forests.
To advance our ambitions, we will be establishing the National Space Agency of Singapore (NSAS), which I announced last month. From the initial 30 officers from the Office for Space Technology and Industry (OSTIn), NSAS is expected to double in size over the next three years.
As we develop our growth sectors, we will continue to partner firms to equip Singaporeans with in-demand and emerging skills.
Earlier, the Deputy Prime Minister shared our vision to establish Singapore as an AI leader, with an AI-empowered economy, through the development and execution of AI Missions across four priority sectors. One priority sector is Advanced Manufacturing. We will work with industry partners to further develop the AI Missions and we will provide an update later.
These preliminarily will be anchored on three thrusts. First, we will leverage AI and robotics to transform our manufacturing facilities to achieve best-in-class outcomes that can become more agile, more resilient and more efficient. Second, we will harness AI to create first-in-the-world solutions, by enhancing product designs and accelerating development cycles. Third, we will drive broad-based sectoral transformation, by helping companies adopt AI in key operations to accelerate the deployment of solutions across the ecosystem.
To support these efforts, we will strengthen two key enablers. First, A*STAR's Sectoral AI Centre of Excellence in Manufacturing (AIMfg). Launched about a year and a half ago, AIMfg has supported close to 30 firms in developing and adopting AI-enabled solutions.
For example, Sunningdale, which is a large local manufacturer of precision-engineered plastic components, is partnering AIMfg to develop an AI-powered defect detection system. Early trials are promising, with expected annual cost savings of more than $150,000 for each product.
AIMfg has also developed a set of common AI models that address typical business needs, such as a predictive maintenance model for rotary devices. This reduces resources and time needed to develop custom solutions from scratch.
Moving forward, AIMfg will further drive AI-led transformation with partners and expand the suite of common AI models.
Second, we will build capabilities in Embodied AI. Embodied AI brings AI into our physical world – robots that can sense their surroundings, that can reason independently and they can act with purpose in unfamiliar environments.
We will invest in R&D to address complex problems faced by our companies and provide shared infrastructure for researchers and companies to test new Embodied AI technologies. Such infrastructure can accelerate deployment of technologies in frontier sectors, which is something that Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh talked about. We will begin with the Advanced Manufacturing, Aviation and Maritime sectors. This can seed new growth areas, by attracting next-generation Embodied AI startups as well as grooming local champions.
To fully unlock AI’s potential for businesses, we will also contemporaneously build an AI-ready workforce through education and training, and support companies in job redesign and workforce transformation. I will elaborate on these efforts in my Ministry of Manpower speech tomorrow.
Mr Chairman, given these shifts, our economy is becoming more digital and innovation-driven. As pointed out by Ms Tin Pei Ling and Mr Edward Chia, energy powers all these efforts. For our economy and our way of life, energy is existential. As demand grows and as we decarbonise, the Government will continue to strike a pragmatic balance between energy sustainability, security and affordability. Decarbonisation will come with costs, but it cannot and it will not be at all costs.
Let me illustrate this using an example, which will also address Ms Nadia Samdin’s earlier question on carbon tax. We will regularly review the transitory allowances, which only cover a portion of companies’ emissions, for us to strike the right balance between maintaining a price signal to encourage investments in low-carbon solutions and managing the rising costs.
As we pursue a diversified portfolio of renewable energy pathways, we will also focus on scalable and cost-effective solutions. As with Singapore’s Water Story, we will first prioritise pathways that support our self-sufficiency and resilience, by maximising our indigenous sources.
Solar remains our most viable option in the near term. We have made remarkable progress. Last year, we reached our 2030 target of two gigawatt-peak (GWp) of installed solar capacity, five years ahead of schedule. We are therefore raising the target to three GWp – an increase of 50% – by 2030, and we aspire to double last year’s achievement within the second half of the 2030s.
However, even with widespread deployment, solar will only supply, at best, about 10% of our future electricity needs, due to land constraints and climate conditions. So, while solar energy is important, it is insufficient. That is why we are currently studying our geothermal resource potential.
Besides indigenous sources, we are also pursuing other low-carbon pathways. Electricity imports from the region can diversify and decarbonise our energy mix. To date, we have awarded around 8.4 gigawatts (GW) of Conditional Approvals to promising projects. Of which, three GW have advanced to Conditional Licences. We are working closely with project developers to secure the necessary regulatory approvals to commence construction soon.
Through close collaboration and cooperation with our neighbours, which is essential, as we strive towards our regional vision of the ASEAN power grid, our first wave of electricity import projects will likely come from Indonesia and Peninsular Malaysia. To prepare for imports from Indonesia, we have identified suitable subsea cable connection routes and landing sites. We are also conducting a full feasibility study on a second interconnector between Singapore and Malaysia. If this is developed, this could provide up to two GW of bilateral interconnection capacity, on top of the one GW of capacity from our existing interconnector.
Beyond this, we are also exploring other low-carbon solutions. As I have said before in this House, no option is off the table. First, we are exploring biomethane as a viable low-carbon fuel through a regulatory sandbox of up to 300 megawatts (MW). Its compatibility with existing infrastructure minimises the need for costly asset upgrades. Since last year, we have seen strong industry interest. We are currently evaluating proposals for the sandbox, and we expect to appoint demand-supply aggregators soon.
Second, we are studying the potential of low-carbon hydrogen, including its derivatives, or its carriers, such as ammonia. Last October, we appointed a consortium led by Keppel to conduct Front-End Engineering Design (FEED) studies for the next phase of the ammonia pilot project for power generation and bunkering.
Third, we are also studying the potential of carbon capture, utilisation and storage solutions to decarbonise hard-to-abate sectors. We will continue working with countries that have suitable geological sites for carbon storage, such as Australia, Indonesia and Malaysia, on bilateral agreements to offer the private sector greater investment certainty. We are also studying ways to store captured carbon permanently in products such as building materials.
Based on the results, we will assess how these pathways can be scaled up, the type of mix possible, to achieve our decarbonisation ambitions.
Let us be real. Even as we pursue all of these options, we must remain clear-eyed about their inherent challenges. Imported electricity comes with significant geopolitical risks and uncertainties. Other low-carbon solutions are not yet ready for deployment at scale, either due to technological nascency or under-developed supply chains.
Thus, while we have not made a decision – and let me reiterate this, we have not made a decision – we are seriously studying the potential deployment of advanced nuclear energy technologies, such as small modular reactors.
Nuclear energy has the potential to be a safe, reliable and cost-competitive option. Its high fuel density is especially attractive for land-scarce Singapore. Just think about it. Five one-inch-tall pellets, which are each smaller than my thumb, can generate the same amount of energy as one Olympic-sized swimming pool of natural gas. We are intensifying our capability building, especially in nuclear safety and technology assessment.
We will do so in line with the International Atomic Energy Agency's Milestones Approach, and we will partner international leaders such as the US, France and the Republic of Korea. In fact, just this morning, this is one of the few moments I come in with a tie, this morning, the Energy Market Authority (EMA) just signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power Company, which operates South Korea's entire fleet of 26 nuclear energy reactors, on the sidelines of the President's visit from the Republic of Korea.
Public trust will be essential. We will work closely with partners on raising awareness, not just for nuclear, but more fundamentally, the existential nature of energy.
As Mr Edward Chia and Mr Ng Shi Xuan have pointed out, we must continue to ensure the continued reliability of the grid, as Singapore moves to a heterogeneous mix of energy.
Last year, EMA and SP Group launched the Future Grid Capabilities Roadmap to set clear directions for capability building in areas, such as system inertia and flexibility technologies. EMA is also piloting a Virtual Power Plant regulatory sandbox with industry partners and assessing whether more energy storage systems are required, to address challenges such as intermittency.
Underpinning all these efforts is science and technology as the key enabler. We are launching a new $800 million Decarbonisation Grand Challenge under RIE2030, in support of our 2035 abatement targets and 2050 net-zero ambitions. Building on past efforts, we are significantly increasing investments in promising solutions to reduce power sector and industry emissions and, at the same time, to ensure a reliable and resilient power system.
Under this Grand Challenge, we are launching a new programme, Singapore Pilots for Energy and Enterprise Decarbonisation (SPEED). Speeding is an offence for the Land Transport Authority. But this SPEED is essential. This supports local translational Research, Development and Demonstration activities and it catalyses private investments, to scale up promising yet nascent technologies.
Mr Chairman, innovation and technology will continue to push and propel Singapore to greater heights, and it will create good jobs for generations to come.
As the Deputy Prime Minister pointed out earlier, we are a climate realist. As we strive towards our net-zero ambition, we have to constantly remain mindful of the challenges, such as the geographical constraints and rising decarbonisation costs to businesses and households.
But that said, we will do our utmost best to secure a clean and green future, because this is for our future generations, with a stable and reliable flow of energy, which is existential for our economy and our way of life. [Applause.]
The Chairman: Senior Minister of State Low Yen Ling.
The Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Low Yen Ling): Mr Chairman, Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong spoke about how Singapore is now entering a new phase in our economic journey.
We are committed to empowering businesses to succeed and thrive in this new landscape. We will continue to nurture a dynamic and vibrant enterprise ecosystem, where enterprises confidently navigate change and succeed.
Businesses today face increasing pressure to adapt in an uncertain world. We have gained keen insights from our engagements with SMEs and the trade associations and chambers (TACs), including the Singapore Business Federation about the challenges on the ground.
Several Members have raised similar concerns, particularly in relation to our SMEs – Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Mark Lee, Mr Lee Hong Chuang, Mr Shawn Loh, Ms Tin Pei Ling, Mr Ng Shi Xuan and Ms Denise Phua. I want to assure them that the Government is leaving no stone unturned to support and to journey alongside our enterprises as they adapt, transform and innovate to overcome the challenges faced.
I am pleased to share that the Government has tailored a \"Business Refresh Package\" that comprises a suite of enhancements to existing schemes, to enable, equip and empower our enterprises at every step of their journey to stay resilient, grow and thrive by: one, enhancing their productivity and cost efficiency; two, growing their revenue and helping them capture fresh opportunities at home and abroad; and three, fostering a pro-enterprise and trusted business environment.
We will also enable our businesses to proactively navigate transitions, while continuing to strengthen our consumer protection framework.
Let me now elaborate on each thrust of the \"Business Refresh Package\".
First, enhancing productivity and cost efficiency. Over the years, the Government has rolled out a range of schemes to support companies in capability building, productivity and efficiency improvements. Businesses that can do more with less and respond quickly to changes are best positioned to stay competitive. Structural changes brought about by AI and decarbonisation will mean that businesses have to adapt to stay relevant. But these changes also present opportunities for businesses to transform and to grow.
I want to assure Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Ng Shi Xuan and Ms Denise Phua that we will continue to enable and empower enterprises across all sectors to optimise production processes and to reduce business costs, especially through technology and automation.
For example, enterprises with warehousing operations are increasingly adopting automated logistics solutions to enhance operational efficiency. They can tap on schemes, such as the Enterprise Development Grant (EDG) for funds, and advisory support from industry partners, like the Republic Polytechnic's Centre of Innovation for Supply Chain Management (COI-SCM).
One quick example is the company Frosts Food & Beverage, which operates facilities totalling 75,000 square feet in Bedok and Tuas for the storage and distribution of food products. In partnership with COI-SCM, Frosts conceptualised and rolled out a four-way shuttle automated storage and retrieval system at its Bedok facility. This has led to manpower efficiency improvements of over 30% and approximately $100,000 in annual cost savings for the company.
Beyond productivity improvements, we are continuing to help our enterprises move towards a low-carbon future. We have heard from Minister Tan See Leng earlier.
In 2024, we extended the Enterprise Financing Scheme (EFS)-Green for two years and expanded the scope to cover companies adopting green solutions, in addition to green technology developers. We will extend the EFS-Green for another five years. This will facilitate continued access to financing for companies seeking to build green capabilities and capture new opportunities in the green economy. In addition, to help companies manage rising energy costs and reduce their environmental footprint, we will extend the Energy Efficiency Grant (EEG) for one year. This will provide continued support for investments in energy-efficient equipment.
The second thrust of our package helps the businesses grow revenue by capturing opportunities at home and abroad.
We will help our businesses seize opportunities from the shifting international business environment. I want to assure Mr Shawn Loh that we will continue to strengthen access to financing through schemes like the EFS. In fact, launched in 2019, the EFS has supported thousands of enterprises in securing financing for a wide range of business activities.
We will enhance the EFS in two ways. To allow lenders greater flexibility in structuring loan facilities, we will remove the facility-level sub-caps of $20 million and $30 million per borrower group for the EFS-Trade Loan and the EFS-Fixed Assets Loan respectively, while retaining the overall cap of $50 million. This means that our enterprises can obtain loan facilities that best meet their needs, whether is it fulfilling their contracts, executing projects, or undertaking capital investments. In addition, we will permanently expand the scope of the EFS-Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) to support companies in securing financing for both domestic and overseas acquisitions.
As global supply chains reconfigure and our domestic market matures, our enterprises are increasingly looking to seize opportunities beyond our shores. Our approach has always been to lower the barriers to entry, to strengthen access to markets and to provide calibrated support. However, like what Members have said, we recognise that expanding businesses overseas now comes with increased risks and uncertainty, like what Mr Mark Lee has mentioned.
Mr Mark Lee and Mr Azhar Othman will be glad to hear that we are indeed stepping up our efforts to help our businesses as they embark on their internationalisation journeys.
First, we will increase the support levels for grant schemes that help businesses venture abroad, from 50% to 70% for SMEs, and 30% to 50% for non-SMEs. This includes schemes like the Market Readiness Assistance (MRA) grant, the Business Adaptation Grant and the Global Innovation Alliance.
Second, we will further enhance the MRA grant. Members will remember at MTI's COS debate last year, I announced an extension of the $100,000 grant cap to 31 March 2026.
This year, in addition to extending the $100,000 grant cap, we will remove new markets criteria and will extend grant support to all local businesses, including both SMEs and non-SMEs. I think this is a point that Mr Shawn Loh will appreciate. This will not only support businesses in accessing new markets but also enable them to deepen their presence in existing markets.
Next, we will enhance the Double Tax Deduction for Internationalisation (DTDi) scheme. To help the companies seize overseas opportunities with greater speed and certainty, we will increase the expenditure cap for automatic DTDi-qualifying activities from $150,000 to $400,000 and make existing qualifying activities eligible for automatic deductions.
Lastly, the Global Innovation Alliance will have a refreshed strategy which supports startups' market expansion across two tracks, \"Launch\" and \"Grow\". Startups new to the market will be supported through \"Launch\" programmes focused on market discovery and familiarisation, shorter market sprints and early customer and partner discovery. Startups and SMEs requiring more tailored support can tap on \"Grow\" pathways to access specialised partnerships to support expansion, deeper market penetration and accelerate technology maturation.
Mr Chairman, no discussion of our enterprises will be complete without mentioning our heartland shops. Heartland shops intersect closely with the lives of everyday Singaporeans, contributing to the character and the vibrancy of our communities.
Helping our heartland enterprises also entails enabling their adaptation and renewal for the future. Over the years, the Government has supported heartland enterprises in refreshing their product offerings, adopting novel concepts and creating experiences that draw footfall and in fact, increasingly, online orders as well, and also strengthening community ties.
To encourage the rejuvenation of our heartland shops, we will enhance the support levels of our heartland schemes, the Enhanced Visual Merchandising Programme and the Heartland Enterprise Placemaking Grant, from 50% to 70%. We encourage our heartland shops to take this opportunity to refresh their stores and conceive exciting placemaking activities.
Many of our heartland shops are small and micro enterprises, which, as Mr Gerald Giam has mentioned earlier, play a fundamental role in the local economy. The Government certainly recognise the unique challenges faced by firms of different sizes, including micro-SMEs. We have developed targeted assistance to address specific needs and support their long-term growth.
For example, enterprises in sectors with high concentrations of micro-SMEs, such as F&B and Personal Services, are benefiting from sector-specific support to tackle operational challenges, raise productivity and thereby, improving their top line and bottom line.
We understand, many of the F&B establishment face structural cost pressures and capability gaps, as mentioned by some of the Members, including Ms Denise Phua, earlier. And this was also indicated in the recently launched Food Services Productivity Report commissioned by Enterprise Singapore and the Singapore Productivity Centre. This, in turn, leads to compressed margins and limited ability to scale sustainably. However, the same report also revealed that the top F&B performers were able to generate close to three times more sales per man-hour, compared to those at the bottom.
When we look closely at it, the top performing F&B establishments observed five key practices: number one, generally, they embraced and adopted digitalisation and automation; number two, implemented strategic menu design; number three, streamlined workflows and space layouts; number four, outsourced labour-intensive preparation work; and number five, adopted effective workforce management.
Mr Chairman, MTI and Enterprise Singapore will continue to do our utmost to enable and to equip our F&B establishments to gain these critical capabilities.
To help our businesses adopt such best practices, during the Food Services Forum held months ago, we launched three new initiatives to support the food sector to: one, optimise operations through the F&B Process Optimisation programme (POP); two, to strengthen their supply chains through the FoodX Programme, which then supports the F&B companies in centralising their food preparation; three, to accelerate the digital transformation.
Besides all these sector-specific schemes, micro-SMEs looking to build their core capabilities and scale up can also tap on schemes, such as the EDG and Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG), for customised support. So, we encourage them to approach any of our 10 SME Centres for tailored advice and guidance.
Mr Chairman, underpinning our efforts to help businesses enhance productivity and efficiency and grow is a pro-enterprise and trusted business environment. This is the focus of the third thrust of the Business Refresh Package. Beyond enhancing enterprise support, the Government will streamline grant processes to make it easier for our businesses to access the full suite of available measures.
I am pleased to announce a new grant, EDGE, which will provide a single shopfront for Government grants, merging the MRA grant, PSG and EDG. We will simplify the grant application process by combining Enterprise Singapore's three flagship grants, and businesses will find it easier to navigate and apply for funding as they only need to submit a single application under the combined grant framework.
The new EDGE grant will support up to $100,000 per year for eligible activities. Businesses that require more support for customised projects can certainly continue to apply to Enterprise Singapore. Businesses will always have the flexibility to embark on projects aligned to their specific needs. Enterprise Singapore will launch EDGE in the second half of 2026. And once launched, the enhancements to the MRA grant that I just mentioned earlier will come under EDGE.
Mr Chairman, last year, the Government set up the Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Pro-Enterprise Office (SME PEO). The SME PEO supports businesses by addressing regulatory feedback that spans multiple public agencies, as well as issues arising in new or emerging sectors where regulations may be unclear.
Building on the work of the Alliance for Action on Business Competitiveness in 2024, we also announced three Statements of Commitments under the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Pro-Enterprise Rules Review, to enhance regulatory agility and to reduce compliance burden for businesses. The SME PEO has been working with agencies to implement these commitments.
First, to publish clear service standards for regulatory applications, with a target of 30 working days where possible. I am pleased to share that agencies have published service standards for 93% of their business regulatory applications, with 80% of these applications processed within 30 working days. This helps make our processes more transparent and predictable for businesses.
Second, to extend the validity of business licences to at least three years, and up to five years where we can. Today, 45% of all business licences have a validity period of at least three years. And in three years' time, by 2029, this will increase to 80%, with agencies actively reviewing their policies.
Lastly, to streamline processes to reduce sequential approvals and repeated requests for information. We have simplified multi-agency processes to shorten administrative timelines and to reduce back-and-forth with approving authorities. For example, companies required to undergo Quantitative Risk Assessments (QRA) are expected to save more than 40 days per application following the streamlining of processes by the relevant agencies.
We will also continue to work with agencies to simplify internal processes across domains. One such area is the industrial lease assignments or the transfer of industrial land sites in the secondary market. Currently, all assignment applications are subject to JTC's comprehensive assessment of the buyer's business plan and economic contributions, regardless of the land area or the remaining tenure of the site.
Moving forward, the assignment assessment process will be streamlined for small sites of up to 1.5 hectares, with short remaining lease tenure of no more than 15 years. The proposed uses must support manufacturing activities and there must also be sufficient infrastructure capacity at the sites. JTC will exempt these cases from the full assessment process and will only carry out requisite checks to ensure that assignees comply with prevailing policy and land use guidelines. The revised workflow could reduce the processing time for eligible assignment applications to within one month from the date of the full application. JTC will release more details on this initiative in the first half of this year.
Even as we support firms in pursuing their growth ambition and simplify the processes, we must be prepared to proactively navigate transitions. Companies shared that with the ESR that understanding their business health and future options were vital in navigating transitions.
As Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong highlighted, businesses will need to adapt to shifting global trade flows, technological disruptions and in fact, tighter resource constraints amid steep changes in the global landscape. This may entail reinventing operating models, as Mr Edward Chia has mentioned earlier, for family and heritage businesses, managing generational transitions to safeguard their legacies.
Businesses can reposition and transform by moving into higher value-added activities, optimising operations, offshoring where appropriate or pivoting towards more viable opportunities to redeploy resources more productively.
The creation, the growth and the consolidation of businesses are all part of a very healthy, vibrant and dynamic enterprise ecosystem. We will journey with our companies every step of the way as they navigate transitions and be their support to help them adapt and emerge stronger. The ESR Committee will share more details in time to come.
Chairman, our trusted business environment is underpinned by consumers' confidence in our businesses and market. I agree with Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Andre Low on the need for robust deterrence and enforcement against unfair trade practices.
The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCS) has stepped up its enforcement efforts and secured undertakings from businesses to cease unfair practices. Where necessary, CCS has sought Court injunctions against egregious businesses. However, such actions require careful investigation and due legal process. I thank Mr Melvin Yong for his suggestions to enhance the efficiency of CCS' enforcement actions. MTI and CCS will certainly consider this, as part of the Government's regular review of the remedies under the CPFTA.
On Mr Andre Low's suggestion to strengthen deterrence against egregious companies, we would like to assure you that the Government is monitoring this very closely and stands prepared to take on a whole-of-Government view to enhance our consumer protection regime to safeguard the emerging risks as well as the need to give our enforcement agencies more teeth.
To ensure that our consumer protection regime is up to date, the Government convened an independent Consumer Protection Review Panel last year in March. The Panel will put forward recommendations to address key consumer concerns, including pressure sales tactics and emerging digital harms, such as undisclosed advertisements. The Panel will submit its findings to the Government later this year for a thorough review.
Mr Chairman, the years ahead will be defined by the steps we take today. Through our efforts to raise productivity, support growth and internationalisation, as well as to foster a pro-enterprise environment, we are laying the groundwork for a more resilient, dynamic and competitive enterprise ecosystem.
By working closely with our businesses and trade associations, we will build new capabilities that allow our businesses to respond decisively to uncertainty and to seize opportunities. With these foundations in place, we are confident that our enterprises will not only weather the uncertainty ahead, but continue to grow with strength, resilience and purpose to adapt, transform and succeed. [Applause.]
The Chairman: Minister of State Alvin Tan.
The Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan): Mr Chairman, Senior Minister of State Low Yen Ling spoke of how we are helping businesses weather uncertainty. To do so, we must stay relevant in two ways: first, remain attractive to visitors; second, build a vibrant startup ecosystem that is attractive to founders, here and beyond.
Let us start with how we are making Singapore more attractive to visitors. Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked for updates on Tourism 2040. Tourism 2040 is our long-term roadmap that is anchored on quality tourism. We are expanding our reach in segments and markets that can drive higher tourism returns and working with our industry to create more exciting and distinctive experiences.
Our 2025 performance reflects this shift. Last year, we welcomed 16.9 million international visitors, a 2.3% increase from 2024. Importantly, our tourism receipts reached $23.9 billion in the first three quarters of 2025, a 6.5% increase compared to the same period in 2024.
There are a few reasons for this good performance. Last year, we continued to deliver world-class events, including concerts by Lady Gaga and the World Aquatics Championships 2025. We also hosted major meetings, incentives, conferences and exhibitions (MICE) events and opened major attractions, such as Rainforest Wild and Illumination's Minion Land.
Building on this momentum, we expect international visitor arrivals to reach between 17 million and 18 million this year, bringing in approximately $31 billion to $32.5 billion in tourism receipts. To remain attractive to visitors, we will strengthen our stage, our people and our show.
Let me start with our stage. These are our precincts and infrastructure. One of our key tourism precincts is Sentosa. In 2019, then-Prime Minister Lee talked about building the Greater Southern Waterfront, including developing Pulau Brani together with Sentosa. I am pleased to update that we have commenced the first phase of our Greater Sentosa Master Plan.
In Phase One, we will upgrade Sentosa's infrastructure. We will add a new transport hub to link Sentosa and Brani, which are collectively known as Greater Sentosa. It will also house lifestyle and hospitality developments. We also plan to replace the Sentosa Express to improve connectivity. We will also rejuvenate our beaches and add coastal protection measures, so visitors can enjoy a day on the beach, even as we protect Sentosa from rising sea levels. We will also create new icons in Sentosa, like Imbiah Canopy, which will become a beacon atop Mount Imbiah that leads visitors to heritage buildings and nature trails. We will share more details about our Greater Sentosa Master Plan later this year and I invite the public to share your ideas with us as we continue to reimagine and shape Greater Sentosa.
I would also like to update Singaporeans on our progress to refresh Orchard Road. The historic Emerald Hill will be part of this refresh. We will launch a tender in the coming months to transform 37 Emerald Hill, site of the former Singapore Chinese Girls' School. This will be a mixed-use development featuring unique hotel concepts, lifestyle offerings and community and public spaces.
We are also on track to complete the Grange Road Event Space in the fourth quarter of 2026. The 3,000-capacity venue can host international touring acts and local artistes – bringing live music, community and cultural events right at the heart of Orchard Road.
We are also enhancing our cruise infrastructure and reinforcing our position as one of Asia's leading cruise hubs. In October, we increased Marina Bay Cruise Centre Singapore's capacity, from 6,800 to 11,700 passengers. This enables two large cruise ships to berth concurrently, allowing us to welcome more cruise lines, like Disney Adventure, which will call Singapore home. I look forward to attending the ship's christening this week.
Second, our people. Our tourism workers and businesses shape how every visitor experiences Singapore. We will continue to equip them with the tools to excel.
For example, our Tourism Leadership Excellence and Advancement Programme equips tourism professionals with skills in both tech and sustainability. Our tourism businesses have also been using AI and other tech, and we will help them better use these tools. The Singapore Tourism Board (STB) will unveil the Industry Digital Plans for the Travel Agents and MICE industries, alongside a GenAI Roadmap, at our upcoming Tourism Industry Conference in May.
Finally, we must put on a good show and curate an exciting line-up of events that attract visitors. We continue to be attractive to art lovers. In addition to kicking off Singapore Art Week 2026 in January, we have brought \"Botero in Singapore\" to Gardens by the Bay. Singapore is the first and only stop here in Southeast Asia.
Like art fans, music fans have been attracted to Singapore over the last few years. This year, they will enjoy acts like BTS World Tour in December, made possible through STB's partnership with HYBE and Klook. It will be BTS' longest-running Asian stop outside of Korea and Japan.
We have also made Singapore an attractive e-sports destination over the years. This year, we will host PGL Major Singapore 2026, the first Counter-Strike 2 Major event in Southeast Asia.
This year's F1 will also be different and more exciting, because we have secured our first ever F1 Sprint event. This means that F1 teams will also compete for championship points on Saturday. We are one of only six circuits to host this in 2026. F1 fans will know it will make our race weekend even more exciting.
Our MICE industry also continues to attract quality visitors and position ourselves to cement Singapore as a business destination. We will host major events this year such as the Passenger Terminal Expo Asia and the RECHARGE Wind Power Summit Asia Pacific. We will host many ASEAN events as chair next year, including the ASEAN Tourism Forum 2027. This is an important event for us to strengthen regional tourism cooperation and showcase Singapore to our neighbours.
Sir, these collective efforts position us as an attractive destination. I will next speak about how we are going to be attractive to startups.
Our startup ecosystem has evolved significantly over the years. Venture capital (VC) funding to startups more than quadrupled in the past decade, from US$1 billion in 2014 to US$4.8 billion in 2024. We are ranked fourth in the Global Startup Ecosystem Index 2025, up from 16th a few years ago. To date, we have over 4,500 tech startups, 220 incubators and 500 VC firms.
As co-chair of the ESR Committee on Entrepreneurship, alongside Minister of State Dinesh Vasu Dash, we have engaged stakeholders across the startup ecosystem to develop recommendations to enhance their access to capital, markets and talent.
Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh asked how we can strengthen pathways beyond capital incentives so Singaporeans of all stages and all groups can venture into entrepreneurship and return to employment without being disadvantaged. We are developing further measures under our committee and we welcome members of the public to share your ideas.
Our committee has been working on ideas to expand startups' access to capital, and I will share how we are doing so.
First, we will set aside $1 billion to expand the Startup SG Equity (SSGE) scheme. This will be to continue to invest into early-stage startups as well as expand into growth-stage deep tech startups.
Today, SSGE supports new and early-stage deep tech startups by co-investing with qualified private sector investors and investing in global VC firms that in turn invest in these startups through a fund-of-funds approach.
One such fund is Matter Venture Partners, a Silicon Valley-based HardTech VC. Matter has invested in early-stage Singapore-based startups, encouraged its portfolio companies to have a strong business and R&D footprint in Singapore, and mentored local startup founders.
SSGE also benefits early-stage deep tech companies like Blue Whale Energy (BWE), which builds and operates a Virtual Power Plant platform, combining its own sodium-ion batteries with edge-based control software to create a flexible energy network. SSGE funding can help BWE crowd in private capital and speed up its development for large-scale deployment in Singapore and expansion into other markets.
Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked about the gap we are trying to close with the additional $1 billion injection. We now have maturing crop of high-potential deep tech startups like Nuevocor, a biotech firm that develops potential life-saving medicines for heart muscle diseases caused by genetic mutations. Nuevocor closed a US$45 million Series B funding round in May 2025 and will enter clinical trials across the US and Europe. Growth-stage deep tech startups like Nuevocor need substantial capital to scale beyond our early-stage support.
This is how we are supporting them.
First, we will directly invest in growth-stage deep tech startups like Nuevocor. This will provide them with the capital they need to scale their operations, strengthen their teams and enter new markets while remaining anchored in Singapore as their home base.
Second, we will invest in global growth-stage deep tech VC funds. By expanding our fund-of-funds approach, we will attract top-tier growth investors to establish their presence in Singapore. They will bring capital, global networks, expertise and deep experience in scaling frontier tech, helping to grow and expand our deep tech startups globally.
Third, we will continue co-investing with third-party investors into early-stage deep tech startups. By sharing risks with credible investors, we will catalyse private capital and strengthen market discipline for our early-stage startups.
Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked if the Startup SG Founder programme only applies to first-time founders. In April 2024, we have made the programme more flexible. While the main applicant needs to be a first-time founder, they can now partner founders who have previous startup experiences to apply.
Dr Neo Kok Beng pointed out that our startups receive great support during the seed stage but face difficulties as they start to mature, due to uncertainty of exit liquidity for investors. To address this, we are strengthening options for companies to raise capital in both public and private markets.
Let me first speak about our public markets.
In 2022, we set up the $1.5 billion Anchor Fund to attract and anchor listings of high-growth companies, including promising startups. We have deployed the bulk of this fund to support companies in their journey towards public listing in Singapore.
We will now launch the second $1.5 billion tranche of the Anchor Fund, or Anchor Fund 2. Like the first tranche, we will co-invest in Anchor Fund 2 with Temasek. This is the second move arising from our ESR Entrepreneurship Committee's work.
This will complement the new initiatives from the Monetary Authority of Singapore's (MAS') Equities Market Review Group, which has seen our equity market achieve some early wins with increased IPO activity and higher average daily trading volumes. Our upcoming SGX-Nasdaq dual listing bridge will also allow eligible companies to simultaneously list on both exchanges with one set of prospectus. I will open NASDAQ's new Singapore Office next week with NASDAQ's management and we look forward to working with the NASDAQ team in the run-up to the launch of the Global Listing Board.
Sir, with these measures, we aim to strengthen our public markets as a compelling choice to anchor growth companies as they raise capital and grow from Singapore. But we recognise that not every company will want to raise capital through our public markets. We must thus help our startups better access private capital to meet their diverse financing needs.
Minister Chee Hong Tat has convened a new workgroup to develop strategies to strengthen Singapore as a leading centre for growth capital. We have met the workgroup and look forward to developing measures to better help our companies raise private capital and pursue other non-public exits.
Sir, together, these initiatives strengthen support for our startup ecosystem, across the growth stages of our companies.
Mr Chairman, I have spoken of how we will continue to make Singapore more attractive to visitors. I have also spoken about how we will continue to make us even more attractive to startups, to founders and to enterprises, by strengthening our startup ecosystem and helping innovative companies thrive and seek funds.
I will now handover to Minister of State Gan Siow Huang to speak about how we are addressing their need for space.
The Chairman: Minister of State Gan.
The Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Gan Siow Huang): Mr Chairman, Minister of State Alvin Tan has just spoken on how we can catalyse startup communities by availing capital to help them scale. I will focus on how we provide physical space and critical infrastructure to support startups in Singapore.
Let me start with LaunchPad @ One-North. One-North by JTC is our main node for startups. It is a major knowledge and innovation district and it houses leading firms such as Grab, Razer, Sea and research institutions in A*STAR, the National University of Singapore (NUS), National University Hospital (NUH) and Singapore Science Park. Since JTC repurposed Block 71 Ayer Rajah Crescent and expanded the startup hub in 2015, LaunchPad @ One-North has supported over 2,400 startups, including tech unicorns Carousell, PatSnap and Nium. Today, it hosts over 30 incubators, accelerators and venture capital firms.
Home-grown company Igloo is one such startup that LaunchPad has nurtured to success. Beginning with smart lock solutions in 2016, it has scaled to enterprise-grade access control software for property and facilities management. It has expanded to eight countries, including the US and China, with about 80 global distributors and 90% of its revenue coming from abroad.
The Ministry of Digital Development and Information announced recently that it is extending its AI co-working space, Lorong AI, at Cross Street to LaunchPad. To create more space for next-gen startups such as those in Lorong AI, JTC will extend and refresh LaunchPad, making it Asia's flagship startup destination. This follows recent engagements with the startup ecosystem, including venture capital funds and accelerators. The refresh will essentially boost the vibrant environment for startups to work, live and play.
A key highlight of the refresh, as mentioned in the Prime Minister's Budget speech, is a new AI park called \"Kampong AI\". This will be Singapore's hub and home for AI. It will be the first startup community in Singapore with work and living spaces under one roof. When ready in 2028, Kampong AI will be the place for AI startups and talent to congregate and exchange ideas. Startups can house their researchers and developers here, leveraging the events, speakers and demos happening at the same place.
With your permission, Mr Chairman, may I ask the Clerk to distribute visuals of Kampong AI and other developments that I am sharing on. Members may also access them through the MP@SG Parl app.
The Chairman: Please proceed. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members.]
Ms Gan Siow Huang: Deputy Prime Minister Gan had spoken earlier on establishing Singapore as an AI leader. Mr Saktiandi Supaat also suggested that our growth be supported by AI diffusion across sectors, among other productivity measures. It is crucial for our budding community of AI leaders and practitioners to have a space to share ideas and build new products.
Kampong AI will meet this need. It comprises two adjacent seven-storey developments – one block with 14,500 square metres of business park units and event spaces accommodating around 70 companies. The other block will have 200 residential units. It will be developed through repurposing blocks in the extended LaunchPad, within walking distance of One-North and Kent Ridge Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations.
While only fully ready by 2028, pilot workspaces will be available in LaunchPad @ One-North from 2026 onwards for firms that want a headstart.
Moving on to another part of Singapore, JTC will be establishing a new LaunchPad at Punggol Digital District, completing it in phases from end of 2026. As a smart district embedded within the community, Punggol Digital District (PDD) is the ideal testbed for translating innovations in smart city, robotics and cybersecurity sectors into real-world solutions. It houses startups, industry, academia and the community under one roof.
The growing ecosystem of companies and agencies in PDD include UOB, OCBC, GovTech, Cybersecurity Agency of Singapore and Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT). Training providers, such as SITLEARN, SIT's Continuous Education Training centre, will have a front-row view of innovation development to incorporate these new skills into its adult learning curriculum.
Another key pillar is PDD's Open Digital Platform, which collects district data and allows lifelike simulations. JTC is working with the Infocomm Media Development Authority, GovTech and SIT to enhance the collection and sharing of the data. The Open Digital Platform will link the innovations to PDD's infrastructure, such as gantries and lifts, to run real-world pilots. For instance, if a robotics startup like dConstruct Robotics wants to deploy applications, such as autonomous delivery, their robots can navigate buildings to deliver parcels or food to users, bringing greater convenience to the PDD occupants.
Beyond catalysing groundbreaking developments here, our firms must seize opportunities regionally. ASEAN is projected to be the world's fourth-largest economic bloc by 2030 and we are building nodes including the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone and Batam Bintan Karimun.
JTC is master-planning an exciting new Woodlands Gateway district around the upcoming Rapid Transit System (RTS) Link station, which will be our northern gateway to the Johor-Singapore SEZ. This mixed-use district, spanning up to 35-hectares, that is about the size of 50 football fields, will include a transport hub connected to the RTS Link and Woodlands North MRT stations. The first phase is expected to complete around 2030.
Woodlands Gateway will offer commercial and lifestyle amenities for commuters, residents and people working in the Woodlands North area. It will also provide flexible industrial spaces. Given its proximity to the RTS Link, Woodlands Gateway will cater to firms siting manufacturing in Johor with their regional HQ functions in Singapore.
Leading global precision optics supplier, Edmund Optics, demonstrates the benefits of this twinning model. Its facility in Woodlands North Coast serves as a sales, innovation and R&D facility, whilst its Johor facility manufactures the components. As a crucial node in Edmund Optics' global footprint, this twinned ecosystem has helped the firm remain cost-efficient and competitive while providing jobs to people in both countries. The RTS Link will make this ecosystem connection even more seamless.
I thank Mr Victor Lye for his suggestions on how we can better support our firms to seize the opportunities in the Johor-Singapore SEZ. MTI will study his proposals carefully.
Mr Chairman, beyond providing quality industrial spaces, we must also safeguard and expand Singapore's international economic space. Trade is the lifeblood of Singapore's economy. With total trade exceeding three times of our GDP, global connectivity creates real opportunities for Singaporeans.
However, we know that global trade is also fragmenting. Countries are prioritising economic security over open markets and competition for investments is intensifying. Mr Azhar Othman asked how we could better support our firms to access overseas markets.
In this uncertain environment, strong international partnerships are more crucial than ever to help our firms internationalise. Our approach focuses on three strategies.
First, we are deepening our economic ties with key partners. We continue to engage with the US and China as long-standing partners based on shared economic interests.
We mark 60 years of Singapore-US diplomatic relations this year and we are expanding cooperation in AI, quantum and advanced nuclear energy technologies. With China, we continue to strengthen our economic partnership through flagship joint projects in Suzhou, Tianjin and Chongqing, which celebrated its 10th anniversary last year.
Meanwhile, we are enhancing our partnerships with other major economies. We are deepening our engagements with India in high-value growth areas, such as semiconductors, aviation maintenance, repair and overhaul services and space technology, positioning Singapore companies as early movers into India's market.
Our Digital Economy Agreements with the EU and the European Free Trade Association are entering into force in early 2026. These will provide our companies with legal certainty in cross-regional digital transactions.
Closer to home, we continue to push for deeper regional economic integration through ASEAN. Last year, ASEAN upgraded two landmark agreements which are used extensively by our traders. These are the ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement and ASEAN-China Free Trade Area 3.0. We also concluded the Digital Economy Framework Agreement to work towards a single and trusted regional digital ecosystem. As Singapore assumes ASEAN Chairmanship next year, we will work with fellow members to build a more seamless economic community and accelerate growth in our digital and green economies.
We are diversifying our economic links with emerging markets and growth sectors to unlock new opportunities for Singapore firms. We continue to work with our Latin American partners through FTAs with the Pacific Alliance and MERCOSUR, whilst venturing into South Asia, the Middle East and Africa with newer trade and investment agreements. This will boost our firms' confidence to invest across these dynamic markets.
We are expanding participation in the Digital Economic Partnership Agreement. It will soon grow to six members with Costa Rica and Peru joining later this year, while China and the UAE are in accession discussions. We have also launched negotiations on the Green Economy Partnership Agreement with Chile and New Zealand.
Lastly, we are actively strengthening our economic security through close collaboration with trusted partners. We are finalising a first-of-its-kind Agreement on Trade in Essential Supplies with New Zealand. This is to keep our trade in essential goods, like food and pharmaceuticals, uninterrupted even during global crises.
We are partnering with like-minded countries to uphold and shape the open, rules-based multilateral trading system. We launched the Future of Trade and Investment Partnership, bringing together 16 small, medium and trade-dependent countries to address emerging challenges and opportunities in global trade and investment. We continue to expand high-quality regional agreements, like the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership and Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, while building bridges through inaugural dialogues between the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, EU and ASEAN.
Mr Chairman, our efforts to expand our economic space and create quality industrial spaces enable Singapore to remain a competitive destination for firms and to catalyse innovation. My MTI colleagues and I have shared on our strategies to create growth and good jobs for Singaporeans, and this is crucial amidst a climate of uncertainties. We will strive to ensure that Singapore remains a trusted and dynamic hub for trade and capital, securing a brighter future for Singaporeans.
The Chairman: Clarifications for the Ministers? Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I have three clarifications, Mr Chairman. One is, on hearing Deputy Prime Minister's comments earlier from his speech, I would like to thank Deputy Prime Minister Gan for his quite extensive speech earlier. He mentioned about the reassessment of GDP and inflation. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, in terms of MTI's assessment of Singapore's vulnerability, in view of the impact of three scenarios.
First, is the scenario of potential tariff increases on key sectors, such as semiconductor and pharmaceuticals, that is one. Second is, slowdown in global AI investment flows, if that happens. Thirdly, Deputy Prime Minister mentioned just now about the protracted scenario of Middle East crisis and/or price shocks. My related question is on enterprise support in that segment is, whether the Deputy Prime Minister can clarify whether MTI has defined clear trigger conditions, such as sustained increases in energy costs or trade disruptions, under which targeted and timebound support will be activated? That is my first clarification, Chairman.
Second is on our plans to budget for physical energy infrastructure to meet our energy resilience and strategy. I note in MOF's Budget documents that our development expenditure for MTI has increased from about $4.92 billion in FY2025 to $9.24 billion, an increase of about $4.3 billion. Can I ask Minister Tan or Deputy Prime Minister whether the numbers already include some of our plans for energy infrastructure to meet some of the energy resilience and strategy, including, for example, landing points, energy storage and whatever new alternative energy that we are taking.
The last question is to Minister of State Alvin Tan, I would like to thank him for his updates on the Greater Sentosa Master Plan in my cut. My question is, I embedded in my speech, what is the projected economic contribution and job creation from the Greater Sentosa Master Plan besides the transport connection between Sentosa and Brani, how many jobs will be created and how many percent value added into GDP will it add to?
The Chairman: Deputy Prime Minister Gan.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Thank you. First, let me address the issue on our outlook for our economy and inflation as a result of the various scenarios that Mr Saktiandi has pointed out.
First on tariffs. I mentioned and explained several times before. I think tariffs have a significant impact on Singapore, not just the direct tariff between Singapore and the US. That is important. But what is even more important is the environment under which we are now operating, where tariffs can be adjusted at will, and with very short notice, overnight. As you have seen, the tariffs have been shifted from one legislation to another under the US.
And also, we have to take into account the reactions from the various countries in response to these tariffs, which have an impact on us. Sometimes, when the tariffs go up, it slows down the economy. When tariffs come down, it stimulates the economy. And as a result of tariffs going up, some economies may decide to front-load their exports, so they ramp up their manufacturing, they ramp up their exports and as a result of them ramping up their exports, they may then import more components from Singapore, and we supply components to them.
So, it is a very complicated web of trading arrangements among countries, and we depend on a rules-based, open trading system. Singapore is an open economy. So, we really will benefit from the global economic growth. If global tariffs are lower, then it will stimulate more economic activities and trade will flourish, and Singapore will benefit from it. For tariffs, from Singapore's point of view, a lower tariff is better for us, because then it facilitates freer and more open trading activities, and that will benefit open economies, like Singapore. I think this is something that we always have to plan for. We have to continue to develop our trading network and we want to strengthen our resilience in our trading arrangement. That is why we continue to negotiate trading agreements in different forms, including digital agreements. So, that is how we strengthen our resilience in terms of our defence against the tariffs.
On investment in AI, this is something that we are embarking on and we hope to be able to attract both talent and investments, as well as solution providers. They are able to come to Singapore and create this ecosystem among AI operators, AI stakeholders. That is why we are now expanding our Lorong AI into a Kampong AI, so we have a bigger capacity, and we can bring together both working and living environment so that it is an entire ecosystem. And hopefully this will generate a momentum on its own and continue to attract more investments into AI.
On the Middle East crisis, this just happened over the weekend. We are still assessing the situation. What we need to bear in mind is that the Strait of Hormuz is a key shipping route for energy, for LNG, for oil. And therefore, it is important as a supply channel for the world's energy needs. Singapore also depends significantly on supplies from the Middle East, in addition to our supplies in this region.
So, it is something that we will continue to assess. We do expect that if the conflict in the Middle East is protracted, I think it will have a significant impact on the overall energy cost. Singapore over the last few years, as Minister Tan has explained, has built up our resilience. We have built in as several measures to strengthen our resilience against potential external shocks in energy supply. Some of these we will not be able to share because they are confidential and security related, some of it I think Minister Tan has explained earlier. I will ask him to elaborate if necessary.
On the development expenditure, I will leave Minister Tan to talk about the energy expenditure for development. But our development expenditure has a significant increase partly, because of the need to continue to attract investments. As many of you are aware, with the introduction of the minimum tax, tax incentive is now less effective and therefore, we will need to look at other ways of anchoring key investments into Singapore. And this development expenditure is part of it. It is designated to allow us to be able to attract investments to come to Singapore to continue to provide good jobs. I will hand it over to Dr Tan.
Dr Tan See Leng: Mr Chairman, the short answer to Mr Saktiandi's clarification on the incremental delta for the MTI budget does take into consideration different aspects of the increased spending. I have alluded to the Decarbonisation Grand Challenge of $800 million. We have also got a biomethane sandbox. And I also alluded to the SPEED office that is going to drive quite a number of these. There are also requirements for us to start to embark on the greening of Jurong Island.
Separate to that, if you recall, either at last year's COS or the COS of the year before, Members of this House have also set aside a Future Energy Fund. But that will be more related to infrastructure development, funding infrastructure for interconnectors to prepare them for some of the renewable energy imports.
I do not have an exact breakdown as to which are the components. There are sandboxes that we will need the incremental budget to develop, but each one of these pathways, as I have said, as we leave no stone unturned, we want to evaluate which can give us that sustainability, the reliability and also the security that is needed.
The Chairman: There is something for Minister of State Tan to respond to.
Mr Alvin Tan: Chairman, I thank Mr Saktiandi Supaat for his interest in Sentosa. Sentosa is just one part – a very important part, of course – of our overall Tourism Strategy 2040. We expect tourism receipts to reach about $47 billion to $50 billion. And this is our key strategy: to attract high quality tourism.
With respect to the Greater Sentosa Master Plan Phase One, which I mentioned earlier, once it has been completed, Greater Sentosa is expected to attract approximately 5.3 million international visitor arrivals in 2045. With all of the different phases that we will be building across the years, many new theme parks and also attractions, I think Sentosa will transform. We welcome Singaporeans and visitors to visit and add to our tourism vibrancy.
The Chairman: I see a number of hands raised. So, please ask your clarifications very succinctly. Mr Mark Lee.
Mr Mark Lee: Chairman, I have spoken earlier about how Singapore and our businesses cannot compete on costs alone but must continue to focus on innovation. As such, I would like to ask Minister Tan to share how the Government assess the economic outcomes of our R&D and the commercialisation of public-funded IP, in terms of enterprise formation, licensing to local firms, contribution to GDP and higher value jobs.
Dr Tan See Leng: Mr Chairman, I understand the Member's interest in the commercialisation of publicly funded research and also the returns on investments. I share the same sentiment and passion as his interests.
I just wanted to emphasise a point. The Government is not investing in R&D like a commercial outfit alone. It has to do significantly more than that. It has to invest in R&D, to build over the longer term our strategic capabilities, the strategic capabilities that is required for our country, to continue to not just thrive, but to be able to run ahead of our competition. And we are actually seeing fruits of our labour.
First, the R&D capacity of our firms and our economy, it has increased significantly. This has allowed our Singapore economy to move up the value chain of industries and activities and take global leadership positions in technologically-intensive sectors and, of course, in the process, creating good jobs for Singaporeans.
If we look at over an eight- to nine-year horizon, from 2016 to 2023, the total annual business expenditure on R&D grew by a compound annual growth rate of 7.8%, reaching $9 billion. So, in 2023, every $1 spent by the public sector on R&D saw $1.87 correspondingly invested by the private sector, and this is up from the $1.38 in 2016.
The number of private sector R&D firms has also grown by 33% to 1,030 firms, from 2016 to 2023. And over the same period, value-added contributed by R&D firms grew by 142%, and value-added per worker for R&D firms grew by 110%.
Between 2016 and 2023, R&D jobs in the private sector grew by 36%, reaching more than 30,000, with locals filling more than 70% of these roles.
We take Mirxes, for example, which is one of the R&D firms nurtured by our ecosystem. Today, 60% of its global staff are based here in Singapore and they are largely Singaporeans or Singapore PRs. This is despite its listing in Hong Kong.
The increase in the R&D capacity has also enabled Singapore to establish leadership in technologically intensive sectors, such as semiconductors and biomedical and we could pursue frontier areas, such as space technology. And today, Singapore is the sixth largest exporter of high-tech goods globally, according to the World Bank group. Singapore has established itself as a leading global hub for biopharmaceutical manufacturing, with industry output doubling over the past two decades to exceed $18 billion in 2023. And major pharmaceutical companies like Eli Lilly, MSD and Pfizer, continue to maintain R&D activities across precincts at One-North and Tuas Medical Park.
Secondly, our increased R&D capacity has enabled us to build a vibrant startup ecosystem and a pipeline of commercially viable R&D companies. This strengthens our innovation-driven economy and positions Singapore at the forefront of emerging technologies. As Minister of State Alvin Tan mentioned earlier, our startup ecosystem is ranked fourth in the world in StartupBlink's Global Startup Ecosystem Index 2025.
Since 2020, Singapore's ranking as a startup ecosystem has climbed from 16th to fourth position and over the past five years, our tech startups have secured US$1 billion or more annually in venture capital investments.
Third, we have developed globally leading universities right at our doorstep for our Singaporeans. NUS and NTU, they were ranked eighth and 12th respectively in the QS World University Rankings in 2026. Strong university rankings attract investments, drive innovation and it provide our own people with world-class education. Riding on our strength in cultivating an adaptable, digitally fluent and innovation-ready workforce in the age of AI, Singapore was ranked first amongst 135 economies in the Overall Talent Competitiveness Index, based on 2025 Global Talent Competitiveness Index, overtaking Switzerland to the top spot.
From 2014 to 2024, Singapore's Field-Weighted Citation Impact has risen from 1.44 to 1.76. This means that our research is cited 76% more than the global average. This reflects the high quality of our academic researchers and their work.
And fourth, our R&D capabilities also contributed significantly to our strategic priorities in areas such as healthcare, climate change and urban solutions. Not too long ago, during COVID-19, it was our researchers, who were amongst the first in the world to culture the SARS-CoV-2 virus. They rapidly developed the diagnostic kits, and enabled data-driven public health measures.
I want to assure our hon Member, Mr Mark Lee, and all Members that we have generated good commercial traction from the scientific base that we have built over the past many decades. Just the last five years alone, A*STAR and our IHLs' technologies have spun off more than 300 new companies, 230 local SMEs and startups have also licensed some 300 A*STAR originated technologies, while over 900 licences were awarded by our IHLs to SMEs and startups. These spin-offs range from MetaOptics, which leveraged on A*STAR's material and wafer fab expertise to make world class lenses and achieved a successful initial public offering (IPO); to Amperesand, which leveraged on NTU's advanced solid state transformer technology to extend its lead as a category leader.
Most of the information by the way that I have shared, can be found in public sources, such as the National Survey of RIE and our A*STAR annual report. We will be focused. We will always stay the course and we will continue to always invest in our future. I hope that clarifies.
The Chairman: We are running out of time. Next clarification, Mr Victor Lye, reward for your eight-minute cut.
Mr Victor Lye: Chairman, I thank the political officeholders for their response and speeches. With regard to our investments in the advanced industries, the SMEs are going to have to transition, and I welcome Minister of State Gan Siow Huang's sharing about Woodlands Gateway.
My first question is, do we have any plans to perhaps develop an industrial estate, a Singapore industrial estate across from Singapore, so that we can deploy these two sites' gateway to the SEZ, which expands Singapore's economic space.
My second question is with regard to that, there is going to be a need for skilled labour. Can we facilitate a framework whereby Singapore skilled workers can live and work in the SEZ?
The Chairman: Minister of State Gan, I hope your response will be shorter than Minister Tan's.
Ms Gan Siow Huang: Mr Chairman, I thank Mr Victor Lye for his clarifications on the idea of a Singapore industrial estate in the Johor-Singapore SEZ. It is an interesting idea and we will be happy to facilitate if there are interested commercial parties that are willing to invest in this estate.
On creating arrangements for people to be able to live in the SEZ and be able to work seamlessly in both places, we are exploring a Digital Nomad Pass between the Singapore Government and the Malaysian government. And just for your information today, Malaysia already has an existing Digital Nomad Pass, which allows foreigners to reside in Malaysia without being employed there. So, there is already something that we can leverage and we are looking at enhancing it further.
The Chairman: Ms Tin Pei Ling.
Ms Tin Pei Ling: Chairman, I would like to ask the Minster Tan. I am glad to hear that there are plans to see how we can utilise more of the alternative sources for energy, hydrogen being one of them. So, I would like to understand whether Singapore is looking at positioning ourselves early, to shape the regional hydrogen energy supply chain instead of just following others, but to take the lead in this. If so, how?
And also, as we look at overall energy, security and sustainability, what might be in place to support firms and startups, whether locally in Singapore, or to attract them to Singapore, to deepen their R&D in this area, and eventually towards commercialising the deployment of such energy, especially hydrogen, so that we can move towards that secure, sustainable and hopefully, affordable energy vision.
Last clarification is that we talk about affordability. As we digitalise, as we double down on the AI, consumption will definitely increase and also, as we import more of these energy into Singapore, there could be cost associated with this. How do we mitigate or prevent such cost being passed on to local businesses and Singaporeans households so that it remains highly accessible and affordable to them?
Dr Tan See Leng: Mr Chairman, with your permission – because there are three clarification statements – I would try my best to be succinct and brief.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Dr Tan See Leng: To the first point, indeed, as I have alluded to just now on the ammonia study that we have proceeded with, we have actually worked with a local conglomerate where we have moved on to do FEED studies, where not only do we look at ammonia as one possible pathway – and I will tell you why we look at ammonia; I know the Member was talking about hydrogen – because ammonia as a molecule, hydrogen as a molecule, they are both quite well understood. It is just that today, the transportation of green hydrogen is very, very, very expensive and logistically, today, the chains are not established yet.
So, as an intermediary, we will need a carrier and to carry that green hydrogen across, we carry it in the form of green ammonia. So, we are working closely with the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore because our aspirations are beyond the FEED study, beyond the sandbox. We are hoping that eventually, we could potentially, if we are able to prove the viability and feasibility of that sandbox, we can, not just use that as one form of energy as part of our green hydrogen strategy, but we could also potentially be a bunkering hub in the transportation and the movement of green ammonia from the east to the west.
On the second part, in terms of how we want to help the SMEs. Indeed, we do have plans. For many of these bigger sandboxes, we encourage – whether it is the generating companies (gencos), whether it is large companies – to work locally with our SMEs as well to bring them along. And the point that I alluded to earlier on, on the $800 million Decarbonisation Grand Challenge, is something that we hope to be able to crowd in from the big gencos, the big MNCs, to our local SMEs to bring them along in helping us to decarbonise.
To the third point on renewable energy imports. Indeed, part of that diversification and energy transition resulting in lower carbon alternatives will come with costs. To start off with, we are very mindful of the type of cost pressures and the pain that it may inflict, in fact, that it would inflict on, more importantly, our households and our businesses. So, where we come in is, we try to allow for the low carbon importers to strike up commercial arrangements with the big energy intake customers. So, the likes of, whether it is Google, Amazon Web Services, some of these data centres, we allow them to negotiate and we ring-fence it.
But there will come a time when the Government will work with all of the different sectors alongside with our carbon tax to smear that price along. It will not happen within this very short period of time, but it is also something that we have to take into consideration. And for the longer term, as we move on to decarbonisation, notwithstanding the fact that the natural gas will always be our base, we are, indeed, mindful of the cost of continuing with natural gas, then you have to add the cost of decarbonising that natural gas, the emissions you have to capture – you have to aggregate it, you have to transport it, then you have to store it – these also come with costs.
So, our carbon pricing is a reflection of the true cost of that particular modality of energy generation. And with that, we hope to be able to socialise it across our entire population, our country. The underlying principle has to be how we deal with, first and foremost, through energy conservation and how do we become a lot more efficient in managing peak pricing versus trial pricing.
But those are in the developmental process. We are developing the Virtual Power grid. We are also working on different simulated scenarios. We are also using energy storage systems to ensure that base load is always maintained. I think these are the paths that we will all have to undertake collectively as we move forward. And of course, I look forward to the strong support of Ms Tin and fellow Members of this House as we decarbonise.
The Chairman: Mr Lee Hong Chuang.
Mr Lee Hong Chuang: First, I want to thank Senior Minister of State Low for sharing what they are going to do for SMEs, in particular, from availability to making it easier to access in future. But I thought I just wanted to ask this supplementary question in Mandarin, as it is more for the Chinese-speaking SMEs.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] When adopting artificial intelligence, will the Government consider whether AI could be more automated, capable of translating into Chinese or other languages, as well as providing voice reading, so that Chinese-educated entrepreneurs can better understand and benefit more?
Ms Low Yen Ling: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Please allow me to reply very succinctly to Mr Lee Hong Chuang, also in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to thank Mr Lee Hong Chuang for his constructive question just now. When he was speaking in Chinese earlier, I was listening attentively. There was one sentence that I thought was very apt – that when enterprises do well, people have the greatest job security. I think this is a very important social environment in Singapore.
MTI's English speeches earlier mentioned why we are vigorously launching the enterprise transformation package, which has three important components.
The first important component is to help our SMEs, including micro enterprises, enhance productivity and cost efficiency.
First, we will vigorously promote our enterprises' adoption of AI technology. Anyone who has visited China would have seen the technology Mr Lee mentioned; it is everywhere now. When we give speeches, Chinese, English or other languages are simultaneiously shown on the screen. So, we will definitely consider this constructive suggestion. We also encourage enterprises to adopt not only AI, but also automation and energy-saving solutions, as Minister Tan See Leng mentioned earlier.
Second, I would like to make an appeal. MTI and Enterprise Singapore will definitely support our enterprises in developing not only the important local market, but also overseas markets. As I mentioned earlier, we will make two important adjustments: increasing our support intensity and expanding the scope of support to help our enterprises seize growth opportunities and expand their businesses.
Finally, Government agencies, not just MTI, EDB and Enterprise Singapore, under the leadership of Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong, will continue to create a pro-business, pro-people environment, building a business environment based on integrity. We will integrate and simplify application processes so that SMEs, including micro enterprises, can obtain Government support more quickly and easily, enabling them to focus their energy on business innovation and future development.
The Chairman: I am actually using up all our break time in order to meet the guillotine time. The guillotine time is 3.20 pm, so there will be no breaks this afternoon.
There are still many hands raised. I will try to accommodate as much as possible, so, I suggest skip all the preambles, just ask your clarifications. Likewise for the front benchers, skip all the — skip whatever you can, and just answer. [Laughter.] Mr Edward Chia.
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui: Sir, I will try to go straight to it. The Deputy Prime Minister mentioned about how growth comes from depth and not just skill anymore. And in a particular part, he said about shortening innovation cycles, and I presume it is about research translation. And I think that is something Singapore is already doing. So, I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, how are we doing it differently and are there specific targets in terms of the speed of research translation to shorten innovation cycle?
Also about the Business Refresh scheme that Senior Minister of State Low mentioned, I just wanted to check: are we expanding the scheme to also support business families with generational succession and pivot? And if so, how so? And then second, what is the role of trade associations in helping to diffuse the benefits of the Business Refresh scheme? And in my experience working with trade associations, quite a distinct part of the success factor is also the secretariat. So, is MTI also supporting trade associations to beef up the capacity and capability of the secretariats?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Mr Chairman, I will keep it short. First, I think one of the ways to deepen our leadership and to strengthen our depth is to develop leadership in our MNCs, in our companies, in our sectors where we already have a strong foundation, like semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and so on. These are the areas that we already have a strength. We want to not just be one of the operators in the world, but we want to become a key node.
And by doing so, we also want to attract key operation functions here, including R&D. So, instead of doing R&D elsewhere, we want to encourage them to bring the R&D facilities here, build the R&D capabilities in Singapore. This will then help them shorten the process of bringing innovation to the market. So, I think this is one way that we are doing so.
Dr Tan has also mentioned about our initiatives in R&D, our investments in R&D and the translational research to facilitate the translation of knowledge into commercial products and services. So, these are the various efforts we are doing. We are also using AI to help us to see how we can facilitate and speed up the process of innovation. So, I think many companies are already introducing AI capabilities in the R&D process to allow them to do so.
I just want to make a very quick response to Mr Saktiandi Supaat's question earlier. I think he asked what are the triggers for the Government to start to respond to many of these scenarios. I just want to say that there is no single trigger. We will need to take into account holistically all the impact and make assessments as we go along. As and when, if necessary, we will roll out initiatives to respond to these scenarios. Under SERT, for example, we rolled out the Business Adaptation Grant (BizAdapt) and also rolled out GRIT as an internship programme to help support workers to do the transition.
So, I think, as we go along, we will make assessments. As and when necessary, we will roll out new initiatives to support businesses in this transition.
The Chairman: Mr Andre Low. Oh, Senior Minister of State Low.
Ms Low Yen Ling: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I will keep it very brief. I want to thank the Member Mr Edward Chia for his two-part question about the family —
The Chairman: Skip all that; get straight to the point.
Ms Low Yen Ling: — family business, as well as the other one on TACs. On family businesses, I want to assure him that earlier on, when we mentioned that we raised the support level for SMEs and non-SMEs and indeed, many of our multi-generational family businesses are in that category. A quick, quick example, Mr Chairman, three weeks ago, I graced the opening of Guang Xiang Tai's new factory opening —
The Chairman: Senior Minister of State, please do not list a lot of examples. Senior Minister of State Low.
Ms Low Yen Ling: — they have been working very closely with Enterprise Singapore and JTC, and in one stroke, because of them onboarding digitalisation transformation and as well as AI, they have managed to increase their production capacity by not just double or triple, but six times. This is game-changing because they are able now to really increase their export capacity.
On TACs, Enterprise Singapore and MTI will continue to work very closely with our range of TACs, including SBF, SCCCI, SMCCI, SICCI and so on. And we want to work with them to achieve three things, \"ABC\". One, to advocate and be a voice for their members' company in their sector; two, then also to work closely with Enterprise Singapore and the various economic agencies to build the capacity and the capabilities; three, to connect the member company within the sector and, in fact, to also facilitate inter-TAC collaboration.
An example is in the last few years, we have launched a lot of programmes for TACs. A quick example is the TAC Fellowship Programme. This is a programme that is spearheaded by SBF. Just a month ago, I went to SBF —
The Chairman: Senior Minister of State Low. Senior Minister of State Low —
Ms Low Yen Ling: — to meet the sixth cohort of — Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Can you please — Yes. Mr Andre Low, last clarification.
Mr Low Wu Yang Andre: This is directed to Senior Minister of State Low Yen Ling. So, my question is, does the Government have any perspective on my suggestion to criminalise high-pressure sales tactics that prey on our vulnerable populations, especially given our tough line on scams and scam syndicates? The way I see this is, essentially, in-person scams is the same playbook – they leverage on fear and anxiety, and they prey on the vulnerable, and the sums involved of hundreds and thousands of dollars can really be quite eye-watering.
Ms Low Yen Ling: I want to thank Member Mr Andre Low. In my earlier speech, I have also responded very succinctly. I want to assure him, as well as Mr Melvin Yong, I think you touch on very similar issues, and you probably heard from the political office holders speaking at the Ministry of Home Affairs COS about their tough stance against scams.
You would have heard in my earlier speech, I shared that the Government convened an independent Consumer Protection Review Panel last year. They are on track to table their findings to us. We will take a very thorough look at some of that because some of the feedback from the focus group discussions actually cover the areas the Member talked about.
I want to assure him that it is not just CCS, not just the MTI family, but we stand prepared to take a whole-of-Government view to enhance our consumer protection regime to do two things. One, to safeguard the emerging risk and also, to ensure that the enforcement agencies are given the necessary capacity and teeth to enforce.
The Chairman: We have run out of time. Can I invite Mr Saktiandi Supaat, if you would like to withdraw the amendment?
Mr Saktiandi Supaat: Instead of going straight away to say I seek leave to withdraw my amendment, I have to thank Deputy Prime Minister Gan, Minister Tan, Senior Minister of State Low Yen Ling, Minister of State Alvin and Minister of State Gan Siow Huang for answering all our cuts. There were about 21 cuts and 16 Members. But I also thank the Permanent Secretary of MTI and his team, because there were a lot of things that MTI will have to do and will be doing going forward, and I thank them for that.
On that basis, Mr Chairman, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Chairman: I thank all Members for giving up your break time.
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $1,861,722,800 for Head V ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $10,705,745,500 for Head V ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply – Head Q (Ministry of Digital Development and Information)","subTitle":"A competitive, connected and resilient economy, with diverse pathways and opportunities for all","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Chairman: Head Q, Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI). Mr Sharael Taha.
Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Changi): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I move, \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head Q of the Estimates be reduced by $100\".
Mr Chairman, artificial intelligence (AI) features prominently in this Budget and this House has long recognised its importance. From a National AI Strategy in 2019 to a National AI Strategy 2.0 (NAIS 2.0) in 2023, we have moved from experimentation to scaling. The MDDI Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) has consistently championed across six key themes. Our cuts today reflect coordinated scrutiny.
First, strengthening Singapore's AI value proposition. My cuts would seek clarity on our global competitive edge and the role of the National AI Council while Dr Choo Pei Ling and Ms Jessica Tan will press on delivering measurable outcomes, not just technical activity.
Second, building deep and broad digital capabilities. Mr Henry Kwek, Dr Choo Pei Ling, Ms Cassandra Lee and I will deliver cuts on how we are scaling AI skills across our workforce and enabling multinational enterprises (MNEs) and also small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to adopt AI meaningfully.
Third, ensuring ethical digital governance. Mr Christopher de Souza, Ms Jessica Tan, Ms Tin Pei Ling and I will be delivering cuts on the regulatory safeguards and accountability frameworks to ensure ethical and responsible growth, particularly as we move towards more autonomous, agentic AI systems.
Fourth, inclusive growth and uplifting vulnerable groups through technology. Ms Cassandra Lee and myself will deliver cuts on creating opportunities for fresh graduates, youth, seniors and lower-income groups so technology expands opportunity.
Fifth, investing in infrastructure and cybersecurity. Ms Jessica Tan and I will examine how we are strengthening our cybersecurity posture amidst increasingly sophisticated AI-enabled threats.
Sixth, building a high-trust digital society. Ms Tin Pei Ling and Ms Jessica Tan will raise cuts on trust, safety and protection from scams, deepfakes and online harms.
These cuts reflect our GPC that has been deliberate, aligned and persistent in championing the work together with the Ministry to secure Singapore's digital future.
Mr Chairman, allow me to begin on my first cut on strengthening Singapore's AI value proposition to the world and remaining relevant to the global market.
Mr Chairman, the global AI race has accelerated dramatically. At the recent Global AI Summit, it was clear we have entered an era of frontier and foundational models powered by massive compute and multimodal capabilities.
Generative AI (GenAI) is no longer experimental. It is embedded in enterprises, public services and national systems. The shift towards agentic AI and AI-native enterprises signals structural transformation.
This transformation is unfolding at three levels. First, population scale. In China, AI is integrated across platforms serving hundreds of millions. In the United States (US), AI co-pilots are embedded in productivity tools used today globally. In India, AI is woven into telecommunications and digital services at a national scale. AI is now part of daily workflows.
Second, compute scale. The race is not just about compute dominance. Next generation chips are being ordered at unprecedented volumes. Hyperscalers are investing billions in data centres. India has announced ambitions to attract up to US$200 billion in AI and data centre investments while the Middle East and the European Union (EU) are securing sovereign compute capacity. Chips, data centres and energy are now strategic infrastructure.
Third, industrial scale. AI is embedded in manufacturing, logistics, defence and energy systems. This is about industrial competitiveness and national capability. As capability accelerates, responsibility must keep pace. Safety alignment evaluation and red teaming are essential. Trust will determine who can scale.
Singapore cannot compete on population or compute scales, but we can compete on precision, trust, regulatory credibility and deep sectoral integration. This is not just about technology. This is about jobs and national competitiveness.
What is Singapore's unique value proposition in the global AI landscape? How do we compete against the population scale, computing scale and industrial scale of AI giants, like the US, China and India? How do we leverage on our high-trust governance, regulatory credibility and deep sectoral concentration?
Hence, I welcome the announcement of our National AI Council.
For it to succeed, clarity of mandate and the ability to execute are critical. What precisely is its role? Will it have execution authority, oversee cross-Ministry implementation, or remain advisory?
In a fast-moving AI race, structure must lead to decisive action. How will the council integrate economic strategy under the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) with digital governance under MDDI to ensure coordinated delivery?
The National Artificial Intelligence Strategy 2.0 (NAIS 2.0) was launched in 2023. What progress has been made? Will the council build on and strengthen it, rather than duplicate or dilute existing efforts? How will interagency friction be resolved when priorities compete?
Finally, how will the council stay connected to industry realities? Will the industry leaders support it and be part of the council? Will SMEs have a meaningful voice at the table?
Thus, I am supportive of a concerted effort to focus resource on our national AI Missions and have champions of AI to accelerate AI deployment. However, I would like to seek clarification from the Ministry.
How did the Government determine the four key sectors for the national AI Missions? What criteria were used? What defines the success for these missions? It must go beyond pilots to measurable, real economic and societal outcomes. As we move at pace, when will we consider expanding into additional missions? I hope they are in months.
Finally, how do we define and measure success for our AI champions in terms of capability, adoption, global competitiveness and real impact on jobs and productivity?
On my last point. For us to be relevant in a global AI supply chain, we must prepare for compute infrastructure.
What is our plan to develop more compute capability? In light of the geopolitical tensions, we cannot rely solely on compute demand being supported predominantly from overseas. How much of sovereign AI compute capacity do we have? How do we be less dependent on others for compute capacity? Also, what is our clean or renewable energy strategy to support our AI-scaled data centres?
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
The Chairman: Mr Sharael Taha. You may take your three cuts together.
Mr Sharael Taha: Thank you, Mr Chairman. If Singapore is to harness AI as a strategic advantage, three enablers must move together – deep and broad workforce capabilities, widespread enterprise adoption, including SMEs and strong ethical governance. The Government has introduced multiple grants, including Chief Technology Officer (CTO)-as-a-Service. What measurable progress have we made in accelerating AI transformation? Where are the gaps?
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Xie Yao Quan) in the Chair]
Unlocking AI's value requires more than just tools. It requires re-engineering business processes and redefining operating models. How are we helping enterprises integrate AI into core workflows and build AI-ready teams and deliver tangible productivity gains?
For SMEs, three constraints persist: cost of talent, lack of validated use cases and integration complexity. If AI adoption concentrates among only the large enterprises, productivity and wage gaps will widen for the SMEs. We must move from advisory support to shared capability infrastructure.
Hence, I propose three enhancements.
First, evolve our CTO-as-a-Service into AI capabilities as a service, where pooled AI engineers deployed across SME clusters can deploy solutions for hands-on implementation. Second, develop shared industry platforms to co-create plug-and-play AI models for common functionalities, such as quality control and logistics optimisation, to help reduce experimentation costs, especially for SMEs. Third, introduce outcome-linked co-funding tied to measurable productivity, export growth or energy efficiency outcomes. AI infrastructure should be treated like shared physical resources, enabling our SMEs to compete by agility and not by size.
Beyond enterprises, workforce development is also critical. What progress have we made in developing deep AI expertise through programmes, such as TeSA and in strengthening AI literacy across the broader workforce? How can AI widen opportunity for seniors, our fresh graduates and women returning to work? Can we create structured pathways for seniors to use AI tools meaningfully? And with entry level roles disrupted, how are we redesigning jobs and apprenticeship programmes so graduates gain both technical and business context skills?
Finally, as agentic AI systems become more autonomous, how do we ensure ethical and safe deployment?
There are clear areas where AI is ethically beneficial – assisting doctors in diagnostics, for example, or detecting financial fraud or optimising energy consumption or supporting seniors with daily living. But there are also boundaries that must not be crossed, such as autonomous lethal decision-making in defence, manipulative behavioural targeting, opaque credit scoring that entrenches biasness or AI agents making employment decisions without accountability.
The challenge is compounded when agentic systems operate with limited transparency, evolving goals or emergent behaviours that even developers may not fully predict. Who ultimately bears responsibility when harm occurs? The developer, the one who deploys it or the operator? What governance framework, audit requirements or red teaming standards and explainability thresholds will be mandated to ensure trust keeps pace with capability?
Mr Chairman, as we advance in AI and digital transformation, how do we ensure technology is truly a force for good?
First, how has the Government strengthened digital delivery of essential services, particularly for persons with special needs such as the visual impaired? Are our systems inclusive by design? Second, as our society ages, how can digital and AI solutions better support seniors while easing the burden on sandwiched generation families? Third, how do we ensure children from lower-income families gain access not just to devices but to AI skills and also opportunities? Finally, how do we strengthen trust in our digital space and better protect Singaporeans from scams and online harms?
Technology must not widen divides. It must uplift, protect and empower every Singaporean.
Cyber threats are no longer isolated incidents. They are persistent, adaptive and increasingly AI enabled. As AI systems become more autonomous, we must confront a new class of risks – AI agents that can plan, probe and act independently.
How is MDDI addressing threats where malicious actors deploy AI to automate reconnaissance, craft sophisticated phishing campaigns or exploit vulnerabilities at scale?
Singapore has experienced breaches before. The 2018 SingHealth cyberattack compromised the data of 1.5 million patients. More recently, it was reported that 255 firms linked to Singapore's critical infrastructures were allegedly targeted and ransomware incidents have disrupted healthcare clusters and third party vendors. Last year, a cyber incident affecting a critical information infrastructure (CII) operator reminded us that our CIIs, from energy to transport, remain a prime target.
Advanced persistent threats (APTs) are patient, well-resourced and may be state linked. They are not looking for disruption alone but strategic leverage. How then are we strengthening our national cybersecurity posture to defend again APTs? Are we investing sufficiently in threat intelligence fusion, real-time monitoring and cross sector incident response?
And on CII, regulations must keep pace with evolving threats. How will the Government enhance cybersecurity requirements for CII operators? Beyond compliance, what tools, shared platforms and AI-driven detection capabilities are being provided to help operators defend against sophisticated attacks?
Equally important, how are we strengthening the security posture, not just of CII owners, but also of their vendors and cybersecurity service providers, given supply chain vulnerabilities?
Finally, cybersecurity is ultimately about people. How are we expanding and deepening our cybersecurity workforce to defend against today's threats? Are we accelerating specialist training, midcareer conversion and advanced AI security integration skills? As AI becomes both a threat factor and a defence tool, how are we supporting organisations to adopt AI-driven cybersecurity solutions responsibly and effectively?
In a world of escalating digital conflict, resilience is not optional. Trust in our digital economy depends on our ability to defend it. We must ensure that as Singapore digitises at scale, our cybersecurity posture strengthens at equal speed.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Sir, on 9 February 2026, the Government revealed that Singapore's major telecommunications operators were targeted last year in a sophisticated cyber espionage campaign by the group UNC3886. Such intrusions are a stark reminder that the digital battle space has expanded into a theatre of strategic sabotage, APT actors, prepositioned malicious code to sit dormant for years, designed to be activated during a crisis to trigger power failures or disrupt transport and payment systems.
For Singapore, this poses a direct threat to our national survival as a coordinated disruption to civilian telecommunications, payment systems and transport networks would directly cripple the Singapore Armed Force's ability to mobilise and deploy troops at speed. While the containment of UNC3886 demonstrates our technical proficiency, we must leverage this capacity to signal clear consequences. The Government must work with international partners to communicate strategic red lines, explicitly stating that the prepositioning of malicious code in our critical infrastructure is an unacceptable provocation. We must leverage our attribution capabilities to call out such actors directly, while carefully weighing the diplomatic sensitivities of naming state-linked groups. We should move toward a posture of active deterrence through precise signalling and the threat of calibrated counter measures. By doing so, while remaining consistent with international law, we can avoid unintended escalation. Ultimately, we must effectively change the cost benefit calculus of any potential aggressor.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): Sir, Singapore, sits outside global consensus. In January 2024, the cybersecurity agencies of France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden jointly assessed Quantum Key Distribution (QKD). Their conclusion: QKD is not yet sufficiently mature and can only serve niche use cases. They said: \"Migration to post quantum cryptography (PQC) has priority over the use of QKD\".
PQC first is not just an American position. The PQC algorithms were built by European researchers. The back-up algorithm is entirely French. Eighty-two candidates from 25 countries went through eight years of open cryptanalysis. Germany published PQC migration guidance in 2020, four years before standards were finalised. Australia's deadline to cease classical public key cryptography is in 2030; Japan, 2035; 18 EU states signed a PQC commitment last November. QKD was not mentioned. PQC is software – it deploys on current infrastructure. Apple shipped PQC to 1.3 billion devices with an iOS update. Google enabled it for 3.4 billion Chrome users. Cloudflare has protected 20% of global web traffic since late 2023. No new fibre, no specialised hardware. A software update.
Without PQC, adversaries harvest today and decrypt tomorrow.
Singapore's position is the opposite. We are expanding the National Quantum Safe Network with dedicated QKD fibre, yet have no PQC migration deadline. Only Singapore and China are scaling QKD as national infrastructure rather than treating it as a niche research pilot. Our flagship quantum spin-off sells QKD back to the Government that funded it.
I ask why the balance between QKD and PQC appears opposite to every comparable nation. Many quantum researchers in Singapore are sceptical. They deserve accountability. Will the Minister disclose how the quantum safe budget breaks down between QKD and PQC, and when Singapore will set a PQC migration deadline?
The Chairman: Ms He Ting Ru, you may take your three cuts together.
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Sir, the upcoming enactment of Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Bill increases support for victims of indecent online content. The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) has been engaging with X over Grok's generation of non consensual intimate images that were distributed en masse on the X platform. IMDA said that X has taken measures to address the issue, including stopping Grok from producing such content. Even as we ensure that the operating environment for tech platforms is not overly restrictive, could the Government explain further the outcomes of its engagement with X? Were any punitive actions taken over the matter? After introducing the spicy mode feature, Grok rose to the top 25 apps in the free Singapore Apple App Store in January this year.
Secondly, I quoted in my intervention during last year's Committee of Supply (COS) that there were reports of students generating deep fake news of their classmates and sharing them in WhatsApp groups. We must thus tackle the real problem. The existing and increasing demand for sexualised images, which is exacerbated by accessibility.
Given that most victims are women and children, the increased accessibility puts further pressure on these groups. We must do much more to educate our youths on the usage of AI, especially if increased exposure to it, and as early as Primary 4. Given concerns about how children handle AI, how do the Ministry of Education (MOE) sexual education approach and AI framework cover the issue explicitly? And how does MOE negotiate students' emotional engagement with AI chatbots?
The relationship between these images and the development of young Singaporeans is especially relevant as platforms work to become more addictive. More concerns beyond our existing legislation may become pertinent, such as content that does not involve specific victims, but nonetheless have societal concerns, such as AI-generated child pornography.
Sir, a child doom scrolling past bedtime is not making a choice. They are responding to a system designed to make stopping almost impossible. The current age assurance assessment, the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Bill and the code of practice for online safety represent a concerted effort to protect children online. Today, I want to ask whether it addresses a distinction not yet resolved. The difference between content harm and design harm.
Singapore already understands this. Regulation of the Sentosa and Marina Bay Sands casinos builds deliberate friction through entry levies, exclusion orders and visit limits. This recognises the need for behavioural design interruption, not just better information about the risks. On social media platforms, infinite scroll, autoplay videos and algorithmic feeds are attention-capture dark patterns designed to maximise engagement by exploiting reward-seeking and eroding self-regulation in children whose brains are still developing.
Last month, the European Commission made a preliminary finding that TikTok's addictive design itself is a legal violation. TikTok is designated under our own code of practice, and the commission found that its screen time tools and parental controls do not effectively address these risks. Silence from Singapore adds a reputational risk. An article in Nature Health last week stated that we must hold platforms accountable for their addictive design. These platforms exploit children's brains and erode children's capacity for self-regulation. The question is therefore whether we should allow platforms to deploy attention-capture dark patterns against children without legal consequences.
Could the Minister thus clarify three things? One, does the code of practice require designated services to submit a design risk assessment, covering recommendation systems, auto play and scroll architecture? And does IMDA have power to act on those assessments independently of content classification? If so, will we commit to a timeline for doing so?
Two, given the findings about TikTok's addictive design, has IMDA reviewed TikTok's compliance report with this in mind?
Three, would the Ministry consider my call last week to use a Select Committee to better examine global efforts to protect children from the harms of social media, especially in the light of momentum building to outrightly ban social media for children? Both children and their parents deserve a framework that holds platforms accountable, not just for what they show, but how they are built. Digital environments do not shape themselves. They are designed. And design, when left unchecked, becomes policy by default.
Sir, history is not one dimensional. It constantly awaits further completion with access to more information. Knowledge about the past is important in shaping how we think and act in the present in tangible ways. Declassification is critical to this process. More credible and independently verifiable information is crucial when disinformation, misinformation, confusion and uncertainty arrive. Transparency is not just for transparency's sake.
Recent access to the Albatross Files underscores that separation with Malaysia was by mutual agreement. This makes it more possible to go beyond the historical narrative of trauma surrounding being kicked out in Singapore, as we look to advance ties with our closest neighbour.
Elsewhere, opening the Epstein files enabled some of the richest and most powerful people in the world being held to account for wrongdoing, and led to figures like Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and Peter Mandelson to be arrested. Access and accountability are especially important when the concerned persons remain alive, regardless of whether an issue is particularly heinous or more mundane.
Minister Josephine Teo stated that when deciding on access to public archives, state agencies take into consideration, and I quote: \"supporting research into our collective past while safeguarding sensitive information and complying with relevant confidentiality and other obligations\".
We should add timelines, holding state agencies and political authority to public account and avoiding confusion as well as misrepresentation. We pledge to aspire towards democracy. In a democracy, state action needs to be defensible to the public it serves, and from which it derives funding. Publicly indefensible positions and actions should not be undertaken. Therefore, these decisions must be ready to stand to public scrutiny at any time. Knowledge of this possibility encourages greater prudence and responsibility.
The Chairman: Mr Fadli Fawzi. Please take your two cuts together.
Mr Fadli Fawzi (Aljunied): Sir, as Budget 2026 advances Singapore's AI ambitions, we must confront that increasingly Singaporeans are exposed to AI-generated misinformation and AI-powered scams at unprecedented scale and speed. A 5 February article in Lianhe Zaobao documented a surge of sensational videos claiming that Prime Minister Lawrence Wong is being forced out and that intense internal power struggles are unfolding.
These videos are entirely generated using AI within minutes, at a cost reportedly as low as US$1 or US$2 per 20-minute video. MDDI acknowledged that it has observed multiple online accounts publishing such fabricated claims about Singapore's domestic politics. An MDDI spokesman quoted by Zaobao stated that public education measures and resources have been rolled out and urged the public to rely on official sources and refrain from sharing unverified content.
I welcome this response, but I wonder if these measures are sufficient. Given the scale and sophistication of AI-generated misinformation, why was the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) not used against those behind these videos? Enforcement tools like POFMA alone also cannot inoculate society against misinformation. We need a population equipped to question, verify and critically assess what they see online.
What structured long-term programmes will the Ministry develop to strengthen media literacy and critical thinking, especially among vulnerable populations such as seniors? Will we expand community-based workshops, school curricula and public campaigns that teach citizens practical verification steps, such as checking original footage, examining sources, and consulting authoritative channels? Can we leverage AI itself to help filter and flag suspicious content at scale?
If AI lowers the cost of deception to $1 per video, then the cost of inaction may be far higher. How will our national AI strategy ensure that Singaporeans are empowered to discern fact from fiction in an increasingly polluted information ecosystem?
Sir, the recent declassification of the Albatross file has transformed out understanding of Separation. For decades, the official narrative surrounding Singapore's independence was that we were abruptly and unilaterally expelled from Malaysia by the Federal Government. That story has shaped how generations of Singaporeans understand our nation's founding.
Yet, the Albatross File departs from the prevailing narrative. The documents reveal that after the racial riots in July 1964, confidential talks had already commenced between the PAP and Malaysia's Alliance Party, regarding possible constitutional rearrangements within Malaysia. These discussions eventually led to separation.
This revelation does not diminish our history, it shows that history is often more complex than we think and enriches our understanding of history. But why did this historically significant recourse take so long to come to light? And how many other important records remain inaccessible?
The recent declassification of the Albatross File illustrates why a Freedom of Information Act and automatic declassification is necessary. The Workers' Party (WP) has long called for a freedom of Information Act, most recently in our General Election 2025 manifesto. This call is grounded in a simple principle – we trust Singaporeans with the information necessary to hold the Government accountable.
Citizens should be empowered under a Freedom of Information Act to make requests for, and given access to, information from public agencies at the level of detail that is requested. Any data or records held by the Government that could inform public debate should also be automatically declassified and made available to the public after 25 years, subject of course to legitimate national security concerns.
Without a Freedom of Information Act and a framework for automatically declassifying record after 25 years, the Government would not be compelled to review and release information, and foundational truth risks remaining buried, indefinitely.
Facts and declassified documents can be cherry-picked to support a curated narrative. This is not what we want for Singapore. A Freedom of Information Act and automatic declassification would shift the burden of proof from citizens to the Government. The Government must justify why secrecy is needed, instead of citizens justifying curiosity. This empowers historians, journalists, civil society and ordinary Singaporeans to scrutinise decisions made in their name.
A mature nation does not fear its own archives. I believe that what the WP has proposed would strengthen our national identity rather than weaken it. We build a genuine national identity when it is grounded in facts, even when these facts are complex or uncomfortable. If we truly believe in accountable governance and informed citizenry, then it is time to enshrine the public's right to know, in law.
The Chairman: Mr Christopher de Souza, please take your two cuts together.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): A core responsibility of MDDI is shaping the historical narratives for Singaporeans and ensuring that our national historical touchstones are accurate, principled and grounded. In this regard, I wish to place on record my strong support for the recent exhibition on the Albatross File and the team of officers behind it. They should be commended.
The exhibition does excellent work in bringing into sharp focus the circumstances of independent Singapore's birth, the pressures of the time – 1963 to 1965 – and the difficult trade-offs faced by our leaders.
Understanding this history is not an academic exercise. The exhibition functions like a compass. It shows how decisions were made firmly on principle, but tempered by deep pragmatism. Faced with existential uncertainty, our Pioneers dug in, made hard choices and built a nation against the odds. These decisions made in the crucible of crises, shaped the DNA of independent Singapore.
There is scope for similar exhibitions. For example, on COVID-19. The pandemic was, after all, a recent and defining moment in Singapore's post-independent history. Those late-night decisions, vaccine procurement choices, protecting lives and livelihoods, and the multiple debates we had in this House, between 2020 and 2022, and resuscitating Singapore Airlines. It was a crisis of a generation and we prevailed together.
Decisions made in past crises shaped the DNA of a nation, and provide the ballast and compass for Singapore's future. The decision-making process should be displayed. Lessons learned from them in more exhibitions, such as that on the COVID-19 crisis.
Sir, AI presents clear advantages. It can consume and summarise vast bodies of knowledge, but ultimately, AI is a tool. It cannot be allowed to be the master. It does not moralise.
Thus, as we embrace AI, we must do so with discernment. We should use it to the extent that it facilitates decision-making, but it cannot be allowed to usurp our decision-making.
Innovation cannot come at the expense of trespassing on some existing IP rights. And here, Sir, allow me to declare that I am a partner in a private law firm, practising IP law and advising on AI law.
Guardrails matter. In my view, there must be clear out-of-bound markers, no deepfakes, no deepfake pornography, no scams, no deception, no misrepresentation and no trespass on certain protected IP. If Singapore can be an engine for AI adoption while retaining its status as a trusted IP hub, we would have struck the right balance.
In short, to discerningly balance AI's benefits without atrophying the human mind, we must ensure that AI remains the tool, not the master.
Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik (Sengkang): Mr Chairman, the Government has committed a large amount of money to support industries in their AI transformation. In this context, I am concerned about how today's fresh graduates are already being impacted, and the long-term compounding implications this has on our national talent pipeline.
In a survey of 250 local employers, 80% acknowledged that AI has already reduced their entry-level hiring. As Members from both sides of the House have spoken about this problem, I will not belabour the point further.
Today, I would like to provide a proposal which I hope the Government will consider. From the Enterprise Innovation Scheme to the Productivity Solutions Grant, in exchange for the Government's support, stronger guardrails need to be established to prevent this support from accelerating the displacement of entry-level ones. Broadly, I suggest two conditions to be added for all AI-related roles and subsidy schemes.
First, at the minimum, companies should be required to submit a structured declaration detailing how their AI transformation efforts are expected to impact HR decisions, particularly for entry-level roles. How many such roles will be eliminated or redesigned, and what career development support will be made available to affected employees? This declaration will serve two purposes – to prompt companies to consider shaping their transformation efforts to protect their own talent pipeline and provide the Government with important insights on how entry-level roles may be impacted qualitatively and quantitatively across industries.
Second, companies should be required to commit to a sustained level of entry-level roles and ensure structured development opportunities for entry level highest. To keep compliance manageable for SMEs, this second condition could be made mandatory only for companies above a particular threshold.
To operationalise this, the National AI Council could coordinate with relevant agencies and consult the industry. For example, MDDI could take the lead in verifying companies' compliance with the conditions. In turn, only companies who receive this verification may submit Enterprise Innovation Scheme claims related to AI expenditures.
Sir, I believe my suggestions are practicable and necessary to ensure that publicly-funded support for AI transformation does not come at the cost of our national talent pipeline in the long term. Similarly, conditions are already in place for some subsidy schemes. The Productivity Solutions Grant already requires companies to submit a description of the overall impact of their proposed solution and specify the expected productivity gains before the grant application is reviewed and approved.
To conclude, the entry level jobs of today shape the industry leaders of tomorrow. Let us ensure that our AI transformation amplifies, rather than erodes the career opportunities that our young graduates have worked hard to earn.
Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member): Chairman, Budget 2026 rightly places AI and automation at the centre of enterprise transformation. But if we want broad-based adoption, clarity and commercial realism matter as much as funding.
Many SMEs are not short of ambition, they are short of certainty. Uncertainty about what qualifies as AI or automation expenditure; how bundled digital costs are treated; how robotics hardware and software layers are classified; and what documentation withstands audit scrutiny?
When definitions are ambiguous, firms hesitate. In a tight cashflow environment, hesitation becomes inaction. Would MDDI work with MTI and other agencies to ensure that \"AI and automation expenditure\" is defined clearly in operational terms?
Without clarity, we risk two outcomes. First, AI-washing. Spending labelled as AI without measurable productivity impact. Second, under-adoption, with firms delaying genuine transformation due to compliance risk. Both weaken credibility.
Clarity alone, however, will not shift behaviour. For SMEs, the issue is risk asymmetry. Integration, deployment, robotics installation and workflow redesign costs are immediate. Productivity gains are gradual and uncertain.
If we want transformation beyond leading enterprises, the model must be simple – de-risk early, reward outcomes strongly. Would the Government consider strengthening upfront support to meaningfully reduce early-stage exposure, and then introduce performance-linked incentives where firms that demonstrate sustained productivity gains receive enhanced support, potentially up to 80% to 90% of qualifying transformation costs?
This would not subsidise spending. It would subsidise results – measurable improvements in output per worker, value-add per employee or cost efficiencies. Such a model aligns public spending with real productivity gains and gives SMEs the confidence to commit.
We must also be careful about how we frame AI nationally. Public discourse often centres on GenAI and digital tools. But in labour-intensive sectors – logistics, F&B, facilities management, manufacturing – robotics and advanced automation may deliver more immediate productivity gains. MDDI plays a critical role in shaping that narrative. Transformation is not just dashboards and chatbots. It is robotics, process redesign and job redesign.
Finally, coordination matters. AI-related schemes span multiple agencies. From an SME's perspective, the landscape can feel fragmented. Would MDDI consider strengthening a unified communication architecture, so enterprises see one coherent transformation pathway, rather than through multiple agencies?
In a structurally tight labour market, productivity is existential. Transformation must therefore be: clear in definition; coherent in communication; and commercially rational in incentive design. If we get this right – de-risk early and reward real outcomes decisively – we can achieve economy-wide transformation, not isolated pilot processes.
Dr Choo Pei Ling (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Chairman, in my work with stroke survivors, we use brain imaging and machine learning to understand how the brain reorganises after injury. A single scan can produce thousands of images. Algorithms help us detect patterns we would otherwise miss. But no responsible scientist relies on a model blindly. We validate it rigorously, test for bias and examine when it breaks, because a wrong conclusion does not stay in a journal. It affects a person.
As Singapore accelerates our AI ambitions, we should bring that same discipline to national deployment. Budget 2026 sets a clear direction: a National AI Council chaired by the Prime Minister and national AI Missions to drive real outcomes across advanced manufacturing, connectivity, finance and healthcare. This is the right posture: AI – not as a buzzword, but as an economic strategy.
To make AI translate into growth that Singaporeans can feel, three disciplines matter.
First, value capture, not just adoption. Budget measures, such as expanding the Enterprise Innovation Scheme to support qualifying AI expenditures can spur uptake. But uptake is not impact. The jump from \"trying tools\" to \"redesigning work\" is where productivity is won. We should help firms, especially SMEs, cross that gap with mission-linked sector playbooks, reference workflows and practical benchmarks. AI must generate enterprise value, not just technological activity.
Second, trust architecture as a competitive advantage. In a fragmented world, Singapore's brand is that we are a place where serious systems run reliably. As AI systems move from assisting decisions to shaping outcomes, assurance cannot be informal. For high-impact deployments, institutionalising testing, explainability where needed and independent review where appropriate will strengthen confidence without stifling innovation. Trust is not a by-product of innovation. It is an asset we build deliberately.
Third, bilingual talent at scale. We will need more than AI engineers. We will need people fluent in both domain and data, professionals who understand context, model limits and risk. The future workforce must be fluent in both code and context. If we build value, trust, and bilingual talent, Singapore will not merely adopt AI. We will shape how it is deployed and ensure that our growth is resilient and inclusive. I welcome the Minister's reflections on how MDDI will drive these disciplines through the National AI Council and the AI Missions.
The Chairman: Ms Cassandra Lee, please take your two cuts together.
Ms Cassandra Lee (West Coast-Jurong West): Mr Chairman, this AI transformation must be managed carefully because it brings anxiety to many.
From my conversations with youths, two concerns have been repeatedly raised. First, displacement by AI. Second, right-sized AI adoption.
On displacement, young professionals and youths preparing for their first jobs are concerned that their jobs will be displaced by AI. Youths I have spoken to have shared that they are worried that they cannot keep up with the pace at which AI is evolving. And as AI make some tasks redundant, their jobs may also be made redundant.
This applies to both youths looking to enter the workforce and those already in the workforce. Despite being digital natives, professionals and even technology professionals, they are nervous that it would be difficult to get ahead of the AI curve.
Many of those in the workforce are willing to upskill but they are time-poor. They need flexibility in training, employer support and buy-in and clear outcomes from each course that they take. Employers, in turn, ask for confidence and assurance that training translates into productivity.
So, the question is not what to train, but how to make training work in practice. What are the Ministry's plans to equip the workforce with the relevant confidence and skills needed to leverage AI in their respective domain expertise? What are the Ministry's plans to ensure that workforce training can be closely tied to improved productivity and business outcomes? What are the Ministry's plans to encourage greater employer buy-in and support to facilitate employee training? I support the Government's plans to explore how it can broaden the TeSA programme to help all young Singaporean workers continue to stay relevant.
On right-sizing AI adoption, AI adoption will not be one-size-fits-all. Different firms in different sectors face different constraints. This is especially true for our SMEs. As we all know, SMEs employ the majority of our workforce, with nearly half in small and micro enterprises. We cannot afford to leave them behind. But many SMEs face real constraints: cashflow, uncertainty of returns, manpower and implementation capacity.
So, support must be right-sized and practical. Not just funding, but end-to-end support to help enterprises adopt, integrate, scale AI in their core processes, redesign legacy systems and tailor solutions to different business needs. These uneven application of AI adoption heighten uncertainty amongst youths as to job security and progression.
In particular, I ask: how will the Ministry reduce uncertainty for SMEs adopting AI? For example, will the Ministry facilitate the provision of shared solutions or proven use cases jointly developed with trade associations and Institutes of Higher Learning?
The newly announced Champions of AI programme will go some way to support the integration of AI into business processes. How will the Champions of AI programme sit alongside schemes like the Enterprise Innovation Scheme and the Productivity Solutions Grant, given that they are administered by different statutory boards under different Ministries?
I understand that MDDI is looking at supporting our libraries with renewed possibilities. I would like to request that the Ministry look at renewing our libraries with family at the top of its mind. Sir, I noticed I have run out of time.
The Chairman: Thank you. Mr Henry Kwek, you can take your two cuts together.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Kebun Baru): Mr Chairman, AI-centric IT development is no longer theoretical. In Silicon Valley, leading AI firms and hyperscalers have moved beyond traditional software development. Frameworks now include intention-based engineering, vibe coding and agentic development. More top programmers are publicly saying they no longer code traditionally. AI-centric development is fundamentally different. It has integral to design, coding, testing and continuous improvement.
Singapore's IT services firms are the delivery layer between our national AI strategy and real-world outcomes. The bottleneck is not talent. Our tech workers are ready. It could be structural inertia within IT services firms and if they do not adopt these new paradigms quickly, our ambitions remain on paper.
Can MDDI work with the top AI firms and hyperscalers already based here to transfer such know-hows to our local firms? Should we leverage on these partnerships not just for enterprise development, but also to transform how our IT companies build software?
Can the Government Technology Agency of Singapore (GovTech) also move quickly to embrace these approaches, while adhering to cybersecurity and regulatory requirements, and progressively require IT service companies involved in Government work to do the same? This is not without precedent. We mandated Building Information Modelling adoption in construction procurement, and it transformed that industry.
Finally, how can we ensure our tech workforce and students keep pace? And beyond the tech sector, how can we encourage both our multinational companies (MNCs) and SMEs to embrace AI in their own operations?
Mr Chairman, our Public Service Media companies – Mediacorp, Zaobao, CNA, Business Times – are not just Singapore's truth infrastructure. They are also our society's trust infrastructure. In an age of AI-generated disinformation, like what some of our Members talked about earlier, they stand between our people and in a manipulated information environment.
Yet, our Public Service Media face significant headwinds, declining circulation in a fragmented media space, a rapidly evolving advertising model and growing disinformation from overseas. Unlike commercial outlets, our Public Service Media also carries nation-building obligations, serving all communities fairly, building social cohesiveness and upholding our national interest. Even reputable international outlets like the Washington Post have to resort to dramatic cuts.
Can MDDI outline its vision for keeping our national media compelling, relevant and thriving? How does it do so to help them stay financially viable, so we can forestall similar painful restructuring here?
We should not underestimate what we already have. Zaobao is already one of the most respected Chinese-language outlet globally. CNA commands credibility far beyond our shores. And with the strategic investment, The Business Times could become the Financial Times of Southeast Asia. Our Public Service Media a key source of our soft power.
Our media must also stay relevant for all Singaporeans, starting with our students. Countries like Australia and the UK have ensured that public service content remains prominent and easily discoverable on connected television platforms. Can we do the same, so that the quality of local content is not buried by algorithms favouring overseas programming?
Our Public Service Media companies are our national assets. I hope MDDI can share how it plans to secure our future. I notice I have 18 more seconds, so I want to add in a final point. I noted we are asking MDDI to do a lot of cybersecurity, national Public Service Media on IT services and AI development. I know that there is limited budget. I know it is not easy task. So, thank you in advance.
The Chairman: Ms Tin Pei Ling, please take your two cuts together.
Ms Tin Pei Ling (Marine Parade-Braddell Heights): Chairman, we are an open society, physically and virtually. Information pours in from every direction and discerning truth has never been harder. This problem is now amplified by AI.
Most recently, many of us would have read about the fake reports online claiming that Senior Minister Lee publicly disagreed with Prime Minister Wong. A resident of mine whom I met during a block visit in January believed the story so wholeheartedly that I found it hard to dissuade him. Incidents like this do not merely misinform. They corrode mutual trust, weaken social cohesion and create fertile ground for scams. AI worsens the threat because it can generate convincing content at scale, iterate rapidly and be used to probe and undermine our critical information infrastructure.
Our Public Service Media plays a central role in preserving factual public discourse and remains the go-to source of truth for important issues by our citizens. Therefore, I have a few questions.
First, how will the Government support and strengthen our Public Service Media so it can more effectively in countering fake news and misinformation in an increasingly noisy information environment? This means funding, talent development, editorial independence and technical capability to verify rapidly and at scale.
Second, what concrete steps will be taken to ensure Public Service Media content remains high quality and highly accessible, across languages, platforms and demographics, so that credible information reaches every community before falsehoods do?
Likewise, how will we ensure genuine and verified Singapore narratives reach international audiences, both to protect our reputation from falsehoods and to project our voice on matters of global significance?
Third, will the Government equip our Public Service Media and our public agencies with advanced tools, including responsibly governed AI to detect, attribute and counter disinformation? Put simply, can we use AI to fight AI, with safeguards to avoid overreach, bias or erosion of privacy?
Finally, beyond Public Service Media, what broader investments in public digital literacy, rapid-response verification labs and partnerships with platforms and civil society will the Government make to build societal resilience to AI‑driven misinformation?
In an age when technology amplifies both benefit and risk, we must ensure our public information architecture is robust, trusted and adaptive.
As Singapore embraces AI as a strategic necessity for our development, we must protect the long‑term interests of our people even as we harness its power. Much of the public conversation today veers toward doom‑laden predictions of AI \"taking over\" jobs and society. That narrative overlooks something fundamental. We can and must retain human agency. We can choose how AI is designed, governed and deployed.
That choice demands strong national leadership to chart practical governance pathways and sustained international cooperation to agree what ought not to be delegated to machines. Singapore has led with the Model AI Governance Framework of January 2019, a world first, and followed up with work on Generative and Agentic AI. These are important foundations.
But leadership must translate into concrete action. Interoperable standards and certification, robust procurement and audit requirements, independent oversight and investments in public literacy and workforce reskilling so that citizens can exercise meaningful agency. Internationally, we could forge norms that prevent regulatory arbitrage and ensure cross‑border accountability.
Hence, building on existing frameworks, what more will the Government do to strengthen Singapore's role in global AI governance, standards, certification, international coordination and capacity building, to preserve human agency while responsibly constraining AI agency?
The Chairman: Ms Jessica Tan, please take your three cuts together.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Chairman, Budget 2026 underscores an important priority, keeping Singaporeans safe from scams and online harms. Digital safety today is no longer just about avoiding suspicious links. AI has changed the way scams and online threats work. The tools used to deceive people are more sophisticated, more personal and harder to detect, even for those who are usually confident online.
We now see AI‑generated deepfakes that could sound exactly like a family member or friend with uncanny accuracy. Hyper‑personalised scams tailor messages to a person's habits, vulnerabilities and online behaviour. Misinformation spread faster at a scale that outpace fact‑checking. And these risks fall disproportionately on seniors, youth, lower‑income families, and those who may not have the digital confidence to tell what is real and what is AI-generated.
To keep Singaporeans safe, we now must move from \"digital safety\" to AI risk resilience, equipping people with practical skills, trusted tools and strong community support.
We can strengthen this in four ways. I would just like to suggest these.
One, introduce a national AI safety curriculum across digital literacy programmes for different age groups and life stages.
Two, the Online Safety Commission (OSC) can incorporate AI-specific risks into its categories of online harms by recognising AI-generated impersonations such as deepfakes and mass production of inauthentic materials to enable victims to seek timely remedies.
Three, establish a public-private AI anti-scam taskforce to stay ahead of evolving threats and coordinate responses.
Four, leveraging the base of Digital Ambassadors, develop a network of community-based digital safety ambassadors focused on AI risks in senior activity centres, schools and social service settings.
Mr Chairman, digital safety tools are about protecting trust, protecting families and ensuring every Singaporean, regardless of age or background, feels confident and safe in an AI-driven world.
Mr Chairman, this year's Budget rightly emphasises the importance of responsible AI. Singapore has already built strong foundations – from the Model AI Governance Framework to AI Verify – and sector‑specific guidelines in finance and healthcare. These are real strengths, and they show our commitment to safe and trustworthy innovation.
But as AI becomes part of everyday decisions that affect people's lives, Singaporeans now need more clarity, more consistency and more accountability.
Today, AI is already used in hiring, credit assessment, insurance underwriting and even public sector processes. But the level of transparency varies widely. Many Singaporeans may not even know when AI is involved. Without regular checks, these systems can unintentionally reinforce or amplify bias. Trust does not happen automatically. We must build it deliberately.
At the same time, we know that modern AI, especially frontier models, is complex and often proprietary. While transparency and independent evaluation sound simple, the reality is more challenging. Singapore's existing frameworks recognise this, but the pace of deployment means we need to strengthen our approach in a practical and proportionate way.
Not all AI systems can carry the same level of risk. A chatbot answering Frequently Asked Questions is not the same as an algorithm screening job applicants, assessing creditworthiness or supporting medical decisions. And frontier AI models, the most powerful and unpredictable, pose a different category of risk altogether.
That is why I believe Singapore should move toward targeted requirements for high‑risk or high‑impact AI systems rather than broad, one‑size‑fits‑all. And transparency does not mean revealing source code. It simply means explaining what the system does, what risks it carries and what safeguards are in place. Independent audits should only be required where the potential harm is significant.
These are not radical ideas. They are becoming global norms. The European Union already mandates audits for high‑risk systems. Canada is moving in the same direction. US regulators require audits in finance and healthcare. The United Kingdom (UK) is strengthening evaluation requirements for frontier models. Singapore should stay ahead, but in a way that fits our context and supports innovation.
A risk‑based approach allows us to protect Singaporeans while keeping compliance practical. This ensures we do not overburden SMEs or slow innovation while still giving Singaporeans confidence that AI is being used responsibly.
My recommendation is for the Government to co-develop practical guidance, sandboxes and sector‑specific standards with industry, building on strong foundations we already have. This turns responsible AI into a shared national capability and not just a regulatory obligation.
Mr Chairman, Budget 2026 gives Singapore's AI push real momentum. But for many SMEs, key questions remain. Will AI make daily work easier, more productive and more meaningful for our people?
SMEs still face real hurdles. Compute is costly, data is fragmented, governance feels complex and workers worry about job impact. If we do not address these realities, AI will benefit only a few.
The refreshed National AI Strategy sets the direction on trusted AI, but SMEs need practical tools that they can use tomorrow – sector‑specific AI trust roadmaps that spell out common risks and good practices, pre-approved governance templates for data handling, model testing and human-in-the-loop check, simple \"green‑lane\" guidance so low‑risk use cases can move quickly while higher‑risk ones get the safeguards they need. This is how trusted AI becomes a catalyst, not a compliance burden.
The Champions of AI programme is promising, but AI adoption is about more than tools. It is about preparing data, redesigning workflows and helping workers feel confident. Many SMEs lack this expertise.
Can MDDI share how SMEs can tap these champions for governance support, workflow redesign and to fully leverage national compute and enterprise schemes?
Our workers are central. The workforce transformation roadmaps must go beyond broad skills. Workers need role‑specific skill maps to show how tasks will change with AI, clear pathways to move from today's roles to tomorrow's AI‑enabled, and hands‑on training tied to tools that SMEs are actually adopting. When workers see how AI makes work easier and raises productivity, adoption becomes natural.
I welcome the Budget's investment in local AI developers and testbeds and the role of Government procurement in helping them scale. And as AI becomes more embedded in operations, the new Cyber Resilience Centre and enhanced SME support will give businesses the confidence to adopt AI safely.
Mr Chairman, when we combine practical support, clear AI trust guidance, empowered workers, strong cybersecurity and a vibrant local ecosystem, AI becomes a real productivity tool and boost for our enterprises – and a real competitive advantage for Singapore.
The Chairman: Minister Josephine Teo.
The Minister for Digital Development and Information (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Chairman, I thank Members for their cuts. Let me start my response in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Chairman, in the blink of an eye, tomorrow will be Chap Goh Meh. Before Chinese New Year, I asked my mother if she wanted me to accompany her to buy new clothes, but the 83-year-old said, \"No need! I have already found the clothes I like online and placed an order.\"
I was afraid that she might be scammed, so I asked her how she knew that the seller was reliable. She confidently replied, \"I will only pay after I receive the goods and am satisfied with them.\"
On the day of our reunion dinner, she excitedly showed me her new clothes, and only then did I feel reassured.
Mr Chairman, digital technology has brought a lot of conveniences to our lives and created new opportunities for our businesses. However, it has also exposed us to unprecedented risks and dangers. Similarly, AI has both benefits and drawbacks. Several Members have also mentioned this.
Some Singaporeans worry that they cannot keep up with the pace of this AI era. I have also felt the same way before. However, as the Prime Minister said, we cannot stand still out of fear of AI.
As the saying goes, \"Like a boat going against the current, you must move forward; otherwise, you will fall behind.\"
Other countries have developed their AI initiatives. If we do not act fast enough, plan broadly enough, or establish our foundations deeply enough, we will inevitably fall behind. The key is that our goals must be clear, and our measures effective.
In this AI era, how can we ensure that Singaporeans are not left behind and help SMEs maintain their competitive advantage? This is a core issue that we are closely monitoring.
Just like my mother – she is not a digital expert, but with appropriate help, she too can shop online safely.
We do not need to force ourselves to become AI masters, because not everyone can master AI to the same degree; the ways in which they benefit from it will also differ. More importantly, Singapore must remain confident so that we can move steadily ahead in this AI era.
In this year's COS debate, MDDI will propose various initiatives in this direction and ensure that Singaporeans can not only keep up but also benefit.
(In English): Mr Chairman, AI has taken centre stage at this year's Budget and COS debates. Members have shared optimism about opportunities and anxiety over impacts on our jobs, creativity and autonomy.
Mr Sharael Taha asked a strategic question about Singapore's unique positioning in AI. We are fortunate that international counterparts recognise our ability to respond holistically across industries, enterprises and the workforce through a range of enablers – from R&D and infrastructure to safety and governance.
On the global stage, Singapore is frequently at the table. Our progressive, thoughtful approach to AI makes us a credible partner and useful reference point. This has made it possible to aim higher.
Prime Minister Wong, Deputy Prime Minister Gan and MTI colleagues outlined plans to grow AI champions and pursue national AI Missions. Later, Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and MOE colleagues will discuss how we empower the present and future workforce to make the most of AI. I will focus on what this means for the broader base of our businesses.
In gist, we want to take full advantage of AI's ability to be democratised, or to put it more simply, for its benefits to spread widely because solutions once too expensive or complex are more accessible.
But if AI follows the same path as previous technology waves, only a small group of companies at the frontier will get ahead and pull away from the pack. The long tail of smaller and often less-resourced businesses take much longer. Yet collectively, they employ most of our workforce. When they fall behind, more than GDP is at risk. At stake are our entrepreneurs' hopes and dreams, workers' livelihoods and their communities' progress.
This is why MDDI is creating the National AI Impact Programme – to turn AI's possibilities into reality for the many, not the few.
Today, 15% of SMEs and about seven in 10 workers use AI in some way. We want to encourage those who have not started to take the first step and help those already using AI move beyond basic applications.
Over the next three years, the National AI Impact Programme aims to support 10,000 local enterprises to integrate AI into their business processes. This will create a sizable pool of early adopters. They can be multipliers in the community, sharing their experiences and knowledge through the intermediaries that Ms Denise Phua asked the Prime Minister about.
Small businesses stand to gain the most. Take Durian Memories for example, a single store seller in Ang Mo Kio. They did not have the luxury of dedicating a team member to handle customer enquiries. Unsurprisingly, they lost sales when hungry durian lovers were not attended to.
But Durian Memories tackled this challenge by implementing an AI-enabled customer relationship management system with a chatbot that automatically answers customer queries. As a result, peak sales went up by 30%.
There are now many AI tools that improve business operations in simple, effective ways. They make up 30% of the digital solutions on IMDA's SMEs Go Digital platform today. We will expand the range of AI-enabled solutions with grant support to meet different business needs. More SMEs can then access these pre-approved, cost-effective and market-proven tools to integrate AI readily and affordably.
Like Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Muhaimin, we want these solutions to be transformative yet human-centred. At the same time, Mr Mark Lee worries about AI washing. We will put safeguards in place for grants and incentives whilst trying at the same time to not make the rules too onerous.
Some enterprises are ready to do more with AI. Take Mocha Chai Laboratories for example. They are a talented team of multimedia creators who improve film visuals and sound. Unknown to most of us, sound effects are still added manually to films, often taking four to eight weeks. After joining IMDA's Digital Leaders Programme and building up their tech capabilities, Mocha Chai created a new GenAI tool that analyses video footage and automatically generates matching sound effects, reducing weeks of work to just a day.
This innovation allowed the company to not only save costs but create a potential new income stream. It has opened up opportunities for both the business and their employees.
We want more success stories like Mocha Chai. But as pointed out by Ms Jessica Tan, Mr Mark Lee and Mr Sharael Taha, more sophisticated uses of AI require multiple factors to succeed. Often, the technology is ready, but people are not. This is why we are enhancing the Digital Leaders Programme and launching a new Digital Leaders Accelerator Bootcamp to build skills and confidence in change management and not just tech capabilities.
We also thank Mr Andre Low, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Fadli Fawzi as well as Mr Sharael Taha for recognising the need to plan ahead, as the Government has done, to manage the energy impact of widespread AI use.
We do this in several ways. We are judicious in how we expand digital infrastructure. When allocating new data centres, we assess how well they use low-carbon energy sources. We are introducing new sustainability requirements to improve the energy efficiency of older data centres. And through the National AI Research and Development plan, we will support public research in resource-efficient AI to better understand our options.
As more businesses adopt AI, there is also opportunity to uplift the workforce and help them stay relevant, whether at the entry level or at later stages of their careers. Beyond the Prime Minister's commitments and MOM’s plans, I want to assure Members like Mr Abdul Muhaimin, Ms Cassandra Lee and Dr Choo Pei Ling that MDDI is focused squarely on this.
We know that PMEs and knowledge workers feel the pressure more acutely. But many have found ways to be more effective with AI’s help. Take Geraldine Lau, an audit professional who has been with KPMG for 27 years. For each audit, Geraldine pores through reams of documents to assess risk. With employer-provided training, she created an AI agent that automatically consolidates key information from company announcements for audit reviews.
The AI agent organises information more quickly than Geraldine can, but her domain knowledge is key to ensuring it looks in the right places. With hours of manual work saved, she can now focus on deeper risk assessments and applying her human abilities – wisdom, calibration and professional judgement – to more complex work.
Geraldine and many PMEs are showing that AI know-how, domain expertise and human touch are a powerful combination. Not all of us can be AI engineers. But we can be “bilingual” in AI in our own areas of expertise and to solve problems in our domains.
For a start, the Government will support 100,000 workers to become AI bilingual. They will be pathfinders for meaningful AI upskilling, for others to emulate. Our initial focus will be on professions that are highly exposed to AI and serve multiple industries. IMDA will work with relevant agencies and professional bodies to expand its TeSA programme, to develop AI bilingual workers in key domains. We will start with the accountancy and legal professions, and extend our reach to other fields such as HR.
As Mr Henry Kwek noted, AI is also transforming the tech sector – many people can now write code and build prototypes with the help of AI. We will therefore enhance the TeSA offerings to help tech workers move up the value chain, from writing code, to orchestrating end-to-end systems powered by AI agents.
With AI evolving quickly, our governance must also keep pace. We agree with Ms Jessica Tan and Dr Choo Pei Ling on risk-based, practical AI governance. Like Mr Christopher de Souza, we believe AI should not replace the discerning human mind.
Our new Model Governance Framework for Agentic AI will help organisations manage systems that can act with greater independence, while ensuring human oversight. We are the first government worldwide to introduce such guidelines. For high-risk, high-impact systems like frontier models, we will progressively strengthen safeguards.
However, what we do locally is not enough, a point noted by Ms Tin Pei Ling. The most advanced AI models are developed in only a handful of countries, but their cooperation on AI safety is not deep.
In recent years, Singapore has hosted major AI conferences to promote international cooperation. Last year, we organised the Singapore Conference on AI: International Scientific Exchange on AI Safety. The exchange brought together world-class thinkers across research, government and civil society, resulting in the Singapore Consensus on global AI safety research priorities.
Recently, at the India AI Impact Summit, I shared that Singapore will host the second edition of the International Scientific Exchange to update the Singapore Consensus. Despite the challenges, we will continue contributing meaningfully to the international discourse on AI safety.
Next, on cybersecurity. Members are understandably concerned about whether our critical infrastructure is sufficiently protected against malicious threat actors, especially state-sponsored ones. I would like to reassure Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Gerald Giam that the Cyber Security Agency (CSA) works closely with domestic and international partners to detect and contain cyber threats.
On the diplomatic front, Singapore recently concluded our chairmanship of the Second UN Open-Ended Working Group on security of and in the use of info-comm technologies.
Realistically, state-sponsored threat actors are par for the course. It is nonetheless important to forge international consensus on what constitutes responsible state behaviour in cyberspace. We must, however, not expect these efforts to be a substitute for stronger cyber defense capabilities. In this regard, CSA will focus on three key areas.
First, we will review our cybersecurity standards and requirements for CII owners. Second, we will provide CII owners with advanced tools, so that they are equipped to deal with advanced threats and. Third, we will work with partners to build up capabilities in our cybersecurity workforce. Senior Minister of State Tan Kiat How will say more about these efforts.
Another risk we face is the spread of disinformation and misinformation, fueled by technologies like AI. As a diverse society, we are particularly vulnerable to online falsehoods that erode trust in our society and institutions. Fortunately, we have been strengthening our libraries and archives. They help to nurture a discerning population by cultivating reading habits and information literacy. Minister of State Rahayu will share more later.
Our Public Service Media entities too, are important in maintaining trust in our infospace. I thank Mr Henry Kwek and Ms Tin Pei Ling for recognising this. Our Public Service Media entities reach over 90% of Singaporeans. They remain highly trusted by the public, more so than reputable international and online media outlets.
Consequently, our Public Service Media entities have become indispensable in countering misinformation. MDDI will therefore continue working closely with our Public Service Media entities to maintain their reach and strengthen their fact-checking capabilities. For example, CNA will set up a digital verification team. Government agencies have also collaborated with The Straits Times on the AskST series to address misinformation.
Mr Henry Kwek asked about efforts to help Public Service Media remain relevant, discoverable and financially viable as audience attention and advertising shift towards digital platforms.
Besides delivering timely and credible news, our Public Service Media entities produce content that strengthens our sense of identity as one people. They also play a role in cultivating news literacy among our young, through regular student publications and school competitions.
Given the critical role of our Public Service Media, MDDI will support efforts to keep public service media content visible and easily discoverable. We are studying approaches in other countries and will consult the industry to ensure that initiatives are implemented reasonably and effectively. The Government will continue investing in our Public Service Media entities, helping them develop new capabilities as the media landscape evolves.
Sir, to conclude, the investments we make today will determine whether we lead or lag tomorrow. By accelerating AI adoption, strengthening technology governance, and building discernment among our people, we are positioning Singaporeans to seize the opportunities and make progress together.
The Chairman: Senior Minister of State Tan Kiat How.
The Senior Minister of State for Digital Development and Information (Mr Tan Kiat How): Sir, we have made major moves in the last decade to shore up our cybersecurity such as setting up CSA and introducing the Cybersecurity Act to protect our critical information infrastructure.
But there is no room for complacency. I agree with Mr Vikram Nair’s cut to the Ministry of Home Affairs that threat actors, especially APTs, will only get more sophisticated. Mr Sharael Taha asked about the Government’s plan to protect our CII.
Cybersecurity is a collective effort. CII owners must take responsibility of the systems they own and operate. The Government will also do our part.
At this COS, I will speak about MDDI’s plans to first, update the cybersecurity standards and obligations; second, level up our CII owners; and third, strengthen capabilities in our cybersecurity workforce.
Today, our CII owners are held to higher standards and stringent obligations are imposed on their critical systems or CII systems. This was a calibrated approach to balance national security needs and business costs. We have observed that threat actors are also targeting non-CII systems because they may be less secured and can be entry points into CII systems.
CSA is therefore reviewing the scope of the current cybersecurity standards and obligations, and may include non-CII systems, such as networks that are interconnected with the CII systems. We are mindful not to impose unnecessary costs on CII owners, and will continue to take a risk-based, calibrated and pragmatic approach.
Sector Leads may introduce additional sector-specific obligations that are adapted for their sector. For example, IMDA will be enhancing its cybersecurity regulations for the telecommunications operators, given the recent waves of attacks. IMDA intends to provide guidance for areas such as managing virtualisation of infrastructure and credential management.
We expect CII owners to comply with these requirements. CII owners currently engage third parties to conduct audits and regular penetration testings to verify their robustness of their defences. These reports are then submitted to CSA for review.
In addition to relying on such third party reports, CSA wants to ensure that the security controls implemented by CII owners are not only tested and validated during audits but continuously strengthened. One way to do so will be to partner CII owners to do on-site reviews. CSA is currently discussing with the Sector Leads on the implementation plan. We will reach out to the identified CII owners when ready.
Sir, regulations and compliance can only go so far. We need our sectors and our CII owners to do their part to defend their systems, consistently every day.
Over the last year, I have visited the CII sectors, taking time to speak with the sector leads and the key CII owners. We have had closed door, candid discussions. Our Sector Leads and CII owners understand that the threat landscape has evolved and appreciate what is at stake. However, they shared with me that most CII owners are private companies whose business is in the delivery of essential services. They are not specialists in cybersecurity. Yet, they are up against the best-in-class, state-backed cyber threat actors. One of the Chief Information Security Officers told me that it is like he is bringing a knife to a gun fight. I empathise with his point of view.
As I said, cybersecurity is a collective effort. We are on the same team. Therefore, the Government will lean in to help CII owners to strengthen their defences and better respond to incidents.
Typically, national security is the exclusive domain of governments, such as developing cutting-edge technological systems and training skilled operators to deal with various threat scenarios. We have decided to avail some of the Government’s expertise to the private sector, to level the playing field between the defenders and the attackers. We will help our CII owners “level up” and hold their own in a fight against APTs.
First is intel. We will selectively share classified threat intelligence with our CII owners so that they are better able to spot and respond swiftly to threats that are attacking their systems.
Second is tools. We will equip CII owners with proprietary threat detection systems to strengthen their abilities to detect malicious activities in their networks, especially those of state-sponsored APTs. These proprietary tools complement commercial threat detection systems used by our CII owners today. We have started deploying these tools in selected CII owners and will progressively deploy them across the rest. CII owners may need to incur cost to integrate these tools into their systems. We will consider funding support, if needed.
Even with these measures in place, we must be prepared that some threats will go undetected. This is why defenders must remain vigilant and constantly enhance their capabilities.
This brings me to my next point on innovation. Threat actors are also not standing still. As pointed out by Mr Sharael Taha, autonomous AI agents are emerging threats. We must similarly harness technology to defend our critical systems. CSA will partner with CII owners to test the use of technologies, such as AI, to help enhance their efficiency and effectiveness of their cybersecurity operations. We will share more details in due course.
The defenders will also need to be competent in using these tools effectively. Therefore, CSA will work with training providers to design and curate courses that equip cybersecurity professionals with specialised knowledge and skills on how to deal with APT threats.
The responsibility of securing our CII systems cannot just rest on the shoulders of our frontline cyber defenders. This is not just a technical matter. The Board and management of CII owners must also do their part. It is a leadership responsibility. We will equip them with the relevant knowledge.
Since 2021, CSA has partnered the Singapore Management University to conduct the Cybersecurity Strategic Leadership Programme for C-suite leaders. The programme has trained 74 senior leaders thus far, such as Ms Dewi Anggraini from SMRT, Mr Andre Shori from Schneider Electric and Mr Kang Seng Wei from DBS. In view of the participants' positive feedback, CSA will conduct more runs of the Leadership Programme over the next few years. We intend to welcome the next batch of cybersecurity leaders by the second half of this year.
Let me now turn to how we are protecting our citizens. Just last year, Members may have seen articles stating that attackers gained unauthorised access to thousands of Internet of Things (IoT) devices, including routers, around the world. Singapore has not been spared. Last year, attackers infected over 2,700 devices, such as baby monitors and routers. When such personal devices are hacked, citizens' privacy can be compromised and their daily activities being disrupted. These devices can also be used unknowingly to launch attacks against others.
The Government will do more to protect our citizens against these malicious actors. First, we will do more to ensure that the digital products that are sold in Singapore have baseline security safeguards in place. This will make these products harder to be compromised.
Today, we require home routers to meet minimum cybersecurity requirements. This is because they are the gateways to networks and transmit sensitive information. They are currently required to meet Cyber Labelling Scheme, or CLS Level 1. CLS is like the energy efficiency tick label you see on household appliances, but instead of showing energy use, it tells you how cybersecure the device is.
CLS ranges from Level 1 to Level 4, with Level 1 being the most basic standard. We have seen threat actors using more advanced techniques to exploit home routers. CSA and IMDA therefore intend to raise the minimum cybersecurity requirements for all routers sold in Singapore to the equivalent of CLS Level 2.
Besides routers, IP cameras are another common target for cyber threat actors. Threat actors exploit these cameras to spy on individuals. Exploited images are even uploaded onto pornographic websites or used to blackmail individuals. To better protect citizens, CSA will explore requiring IP cameras to meet CLS Level 2, similar to home routers.
CSA will continue to monitor and review if more digital devices should be required to meet minimum cybersecurity standards.
Second, for organisations which handle sensitive data, including personally identifiable information, we are considering to introduce more stringent cybersecurity and data protection obligations. The Government will take the lead in this. GovTech will require Government vendors that manage critical systems and sensitive government data to meet Cyber Trust Mark requirements.
CSA will also require the following three groups of entities who are operating, assessing or handling sensitive systems and data to meet Cyber Trust Mark Requirements. These are the CII owners, auditors conducting cybersecurity audits on CII systems and CSA's licensed Cybersecurity Service Providers providing penetration testing and managed security operations centre services.
Consultations with relevant stakeholders are ongoing and these measures will be implemented progressively over the next two years.
We are also looking ahead to prepare for tomorrow's threats. Mr Kenneth Tiong sought to clarify Singapore's approach to quantum-safe migration. We have been monitoring this technological trend closely. We also take the position that PQC will be the mainstream solution for quantum-safe migration. It is widely tested and internationally accepted. Singapore will take reference from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standard as the baseline. As Mr Tiong pointed out, this is the position taken by many other countries.
QKD is a complementary technology. It is more for niche application, like securing high assurance communications. Singapore takes a risk-oriented approach when it comes to quantum-safe migration. The Government is reviewing the practical steps we can take for quantum-safe migration, including adoption of PQC and the appropriate role of QKD, if needed.
We have started investing in capabilities to support businesses in quantum-safe migration. In October 2025, CSA released a Quantum-Safe Handbook and Quantum Readiness Index to raise awareness of the associated risks. We are working with industry experts to better support organisations in their efforts, including through training. We are also deploying two quantum-safe networks nationwide through the National Quantum Safe Network Plus (NQSN+) initiative. This provides additional options for businesses to integrate quantum-safe solutions, such as PQC and QKD, into their networks and systems.
By supporting the provision of NQSN+ infrastructure and services, we aim to reduce the technical and financial barriers for organisations looking to implement quantum-safe solutions. Quantum-related technology is an evolving field. We are closely monitoring developments and will release guidance on this in due course.
We are prepared to adopt different technological solutions if they prove to be effective and able to meet our needs.
Sir, our digital infrastructure underpins our economy and daily life of citizens. MDDI is committed to improve the resilience and security of our digital infrastructure.
The Chairman: Minister of State Jasmin Lau.
The Minister of State for Digital Development and Information (Ms Jasmin Lau): Mr Chairman, in today's world, many businesses provide seamless, effective and reliable digital services. Singaporeans expect the same from the Government.
While we have made good progress, we can do better. We must acknowledge that citizens still encounter services that are slower than they should be, forms that ask for information we already have or systems that do not speak easily to one another. My speech is about what must change.
Let me borrow an analogy from a familiar childhood toy – LEGO sets. There are a few things that we can learn from LEGO sets.
First, they are based on a strong understanding of their customers and how preferences change over time. Children grow. Attention spans evolve. LEGO designs have adapted accordingly.
Second, modularity. Every brick is designed to connect seamlessly with one another. Builders do not need to reinvent the basic structure each time. They reuse, recombine and build upwards.
Third, customers can choose how simple or complex a model to build. For some, a simple LEGO DUPLO or LEGO City set is sufficient. And for others who want complexity, LEGO Technic or LEGO Education SPIKE sets offer advanced mechanical components. These are optional but easily added on.
The analogy may sound simple, but the engineering discipline behind it is not. What do these lessons look like for us, in the Public Service?
We must understand our citizens continuously, not episodically. Singaporeans' expectations evolve. Their life journeys change. A service that felt intuitive ten years ago may feel slow or fragmented today. We must design modular systems and digital components that work across agencies. When systems connect seamlessly, citizens experience Government as a whole. And we must be able to provide services that meet complex needs. Our advanced shared tools, such as AI platforms and coding assistants, support us in building specialised components at scale. Not every problem has complex needs. But when complexity is needed, the capability must already be there. Secure, integrated and ready.
To do all of this well, some of our habits must change. Sometimes, digital transformation becomes a collection of projects. New apps and new pilots. Transformation is not about the number of digital projects launched. It is whether citizens find it simpler, faster and clearer to deal with the Government.
This requires discipline in problem definition. It also requires discipline in experimentation. In the Public Service, caution is natural. But doing nothing, while expectations move ahead of us, is a risk. We must learn to manage that risk, not eliminate experimentation.
Through initiatives, like Open Government Products' (OGP's) Hack for Public Good, our officers work closely with users to understand and address real pain points. A team observed that medical social workers spent long hours writing case notes after emotionally difficult conversations. Their first instinct was to build an automated transcription and summary tool. But the tool did not fully address the users' needs. Our social workers wanted greater control over how case notes were structured, so that important information can be retrieved easily. When the generated notes were not organised clearly, they rewrote them.
The team refined the tool into Scribe, an AI-powered tool that transcribes conversations and generates summaries according to the topics and writing style chosen by the user. Scribe is now used in over 100 social service agencies and all public healthcare institutions. On average, 36 minutes are saved on documentation per conversation. That time is not just a data point. It is time returned to care.
If LEGO connectors were redesigned every year, no one could build anything coherent. In Government, incompatible systems have the same effect. Previously, agencies often built separate systems for different needs, believing that every need was unique. While well-intentioned, this led to duplication and integration challenges. Citizens feel the fragmentation when information cannot be shared across systems.
So, our approach must be modular. We must provide and use common digital components, like secure logins and payment processing, built on shared standards for security and resilience. Agencies should not rebuild what already exists. They should reuse, recombine and focus on what makes their missions unique.
When the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) stepped up vaping enforcement last year, they needed a new system for their operations. HSA built on shared tools from GovTech and OGP, such as Ownself Gather, a case management system, and Plumber, which allows officers to automate manual tasks, like tracking repeat offences. By doing this, their enhanced Vaping Information System was live in just three weeks. A system built from scratch, would have taken months.
When we build faster, we enforce faster and citizens are better protected.
Some services need simple, reliable components and we must resist the temptation to over-engineer. But sometimes, we do need advanced tools that can help us build better services and do so more quickly.
Mr Henry Kwek asked how GovTech is embracing AI-centric IT development and encouraging its vendors to adopt such practices. We are providing common tools, such as commercial AI coding assistants that support Government developers and vendors with tasks like code completion. We also have AI tools for GovTech officers to build and deploy functional prototypes without writing code. For both the Public Service and our contracted vendors, these tools are governed by standards for secure development, safe AI use and data protection. GovTech is also piloting agentic AI coding tools internally and plans to expand these capabilities across Government.
Our shared tools also help agencies build more inclusive and user‑centric services. As Mr Sharael Taha highlighted, essential Government services should be accessible by everyone, including persons with disabilities.
One of our most valuable shared tools is called Oobee. It proactively detects accessibility issues on Government websites and suggests fixes, like including descriptive text that can be read aloud by Assistive Technology for our visually impaired users. Oobee has scanned over 1,600 websites since 2023. It has shown us how even with good intentions, we may have blind spots.
The success of our services rests on a strong foundation of trust. Singaporeans use our digital services because they trust that these are secure and that they are dealing with legitimate Government officials. Government official impersonation scams are a serious threat because they attack that trust directly.
Mr Sharael Taha asked about our efforts to protect citizens from scams. We have already taken steps, for example, by unifying SMS messages from Government under the \"gov.sg\" sender ID. For citizens to easily identify and trust calls from the Government, OGP and IMDA are developing systems for agencies to make calls with numbers that start with a common prefix. Later on, we will display a recognisable caller name.
Many scammers also use local SIM cards for illicit purposes. To address this, IMDA, in consultation with the Singapore Police Force, recently implemented a limit of 10 postpaid SIM cards per person across all telcos. The Government will also apply analytics to SIM card registration data, within strict legal safeguards, to proactively detect and disrupt potential scam activities. These measures focus on identifying suspicious registration patterns.
Think about what it takes to go from building a beginner LEGO set, maybe a simple car, a few dozen pieces, designed for a young child, to a full LEGO Education SPIKE robot. It is not just more bricks. It is a different level of skill, confidence and ambition. The builder must grow with the challenge. Our public officers must grow with the challenge.
Many of our loyal and hardworking public officers have spent years building skills for their work. With the tools around them changing fast, this can feel exciting for some. For others, it feels unsettling, as if the expertise they have worked hard to develop might be overtaken before they can fully use it.
Our job is not just to offer comfort, but to build capability. To give them the confidence to use a new tool and think: I can work with this. I can ask the right questions. And I can tell whether the output is good or not.
We have already started digital training for our Cabinet Ministers and Senior Public Service Leaders, as Minister Chan Chun Sing mentioned earlier. Leaders set the conditions. When they understand the digital landscape, they can guide change confidently and ask their teams the right questions. For our broader Public Service, the goal is to ensure that no public officer feels powerless in a digital world.
MDDI will establish the Institute of Digital Government together with the Civil Service College. The Institute will equip our public officers with Digital, Data, Design and AI skills. We will focus not just on technology but on designing solutions that are citizen-centred and secure.
We also need to address the outdated systems that no longer support our needs. These are systems built early in our digitalisation journey, using technology that was prevalent at the time. Today, these systems are inflexible, expensive and difficult to integrate. They slow down policy change and hinder our ability to share information for seamless services. We have started on this. Rebuilding our systems will take time, but we are committed to this effort, because this is foundational to our digital transformation. Every modernisation effort gives us a chance to rebuild and create faster, connected systems that can better support service delivery.
I have described what we must do, to improve our Government digital services. We must understand our citizens continuously, build in a modular way and develop capabilities for complexity. We will upgrade the skills of our public officers and rebuild many of our outdated systems over time.
If we do this well, our citizens will feel the difference. Their experience with Government will feel simpler, clearer and more human, especially at moments when citizens have little bandwidth to deal with Government.
Take parents of newborns, for example. In those precious early days, what you want most is time with your baby, not multiple forms to fill. We have therefore integrated services around this life moment. Through LifeSG, parents can complete services like birth registration, apply for Baby Bonus and Shared Parental Leave, with far less paperwork. The aim is simple: fewer steps, fewer repeats, more time for families.
With AI, we can go one step further, from services that respond, to services that guide.
Take the SupportGoWhere portal, which consolidates Government schemes across 31 agencies. Imagine trying to look for support from nearly 300 options, across different life stages and needs. Our seniors and their caregivers told us that they felt overwhelmed: too much information, too many pathways. And where do they even begin? So, we redesigned the experience. The Senior Support Recommender will ask them several questions and then uses AI to recommend them the most relevant schemes. We are still refining it, but this is the direction that we want to go: a government that helps citizens find the information that they need, instead of making them hunt for it.
Delivering better services also means that our precious human Public Service officers can focus their time and their resources on supporting those who truly are not able to use technology. They can be served by our officers in a more timely manner.
Better services must also be faster, because delays are not just administrative in nature. They do affect real lives. This matters, in healthcare.
As our population ages, demand for healthcare professionals will rise. Lengthy manual registration processes to bring in nurses can become a bottleneck that delays care. And that is why we are simplifying our processes and rebuilding the Professional Registration System to streamline and automate routine checks for our healthcare professionals. We have reduced processing time for foreign nurse registrations from up to six months to 30 days. For patients and families waiting for care, this can mean earlier treatment, earlier support and less anxiety.
These examples are not exceptions to be admired. They must become more of the norm. All of us working in Government must ask ourselves: if we are responsible for a policy, is it being delivered in the simplest way possible? If we are designing a service, ask: would I accept this experience for my own family?
Our transformation will not happen overnight, but that is the standard that we will hold ourselves to.
Mr Chairman, building digital capability is not just about chasing technology. It is about raising our standard of service. Increasingly, Singaporeans compare us to the best digital experiences in their daily lives, not just to governments elsewhere. That is the standard and it is our responsibility to meet it.
The Chairman: Minister of State Rahayu Mahzam.
The Minister of State for Digital Development and Information (Ms Rahayu Mahzam): Mr Chairman, while technology has made our lives easier and offers the promise of a better future, we must ensure our digital society remains safe and vibrant.
The Government will continue to play a strong role in protecting those who are most vulnerable to online harms. At the same time, we must also empower citizens to build the skillsets and confidence to navigate and learn in today's digital world, especially with the advent of AI. I will outline MDDI's efforts in these areas.
Let me start with online harms. Many of us have heard stories, or perhaps even know someone who is a victim of online harms. Some victims have experienced online stalking, while others have had their intimate photos abused. Often, victims and their families deal with tremendous distress and helplessness.
This is why the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Bill, passed in Parliament last November, is so crucial.
As part of the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Act, we will establish a new agency, the Online Safety Commission (OSC). The OSC will be set up by the first half of this year. It will begin by supporting victims of five highly prevalent and severe online harms: online harassment; intimate image abuse; image-based child abuse; doxxing; and online stalking. Upon assessment of a victim's report, the OSC can issue directions to disable access to harmful online content or restrict the perpetrator's online account.
Even as we set up the OSC to provide an additional avenue of support, I know that many parents are naturally worried about their children's daily digital activities. Children are amongst the most active digital users, and many parents are stretched as they juggle monitoring their children's digital usage with other commitments. In MDDI's Digital Parenting Study in 2025, over half of respondents wanted more Government support, including stronger legislation, to help them manage their children's digital activities.
Ms He Ting Ru asked about efforts to better protect children from the harms and risks associated with social media.
We have taken progressive regulatory measures to address the concerns of parents and the community. Over the past three years, we introduced two Codes of Practice for Online Safety. The Codes require designated social media services and app stores to minimise Singapore users', especially children's exposure to harmful content. The Codes also require designated social media services and designated app stores to submit annual online safety reports to IMDA. IMDA is presently assessing the annual online safety reports submitted by the designates social media services in 2025. IMDA's overall report will be published alongside designated social media services reports when ready.
Today, we already do age assurance in the physical world, like how supermarkets or convenience stores check the ID of customers before selling age restricted products, such as alcohol or tobacco. From the end of this month, designated app stores will have to implement age assurance measures to prevent users who are under 18 from accessing and downloading age-inappropriate apps.
As new risks continue to emerge, online safety remains a constant challenge around the world. Some overseas jurisdictions have announced or implemented social media bans. Singapore also wants to strengthen protection for our children online and we want to do it right and take a holistic approach.
As MDDI continues to study the impact of social media bans, we plan to extend age assurance requirements to designated social media services. This would better ensure that online services are age-appropriate for users, including children. Consultations with the designated social media services are ongoing, and more details will be announced later this year.
The Government remains vigilant regarding online harms outside of app stores and social media services. Some parents have expressed concerns about harms that online video games bring, including exposure to inappropriate content, cyberbullying and screen addiction. We recognise these concerns and are studying whether safeguards on online video games are needed.
We are also mindful of other types of online services that may pose a threat to online safety. As Ms He Ting Ru pointed out, one example is the misuse of AI to generate indecent content, such as sexual content and violent content, in real time and at scale. Chatbots that are embedded in social media services present unique risks as users, including children, can access them more easily.
Ms He also raised a recent worrying trend of users using prompts on X's chatbot, Grok, to replace the clothes of adults and children with revealing attire, such as bikinis. IMDA is engaging X on the issue. We note that X has taken some measures to address the matter globally. We will continue to monitor the issue closely and will work with X to enhance online safety for Singapore users on its platform. We will not hesitate to take designated social media services to task if they have failed to comply with the SMS code. We are also studying whether safeguards for AI chatbots are needed to better protect users from the harms caused by their misuse.
While parents can look forward to stronger guardrails to protect our children from online harms, parents also play an important role in inculcating healthy digital habits in children. Parenting in the digital age is undoubtedly challenging. We frequently hear stories of children being glued to their devices during family dinners, or parents feeling shut out from their children's digital spaces. Some have even described parenting today as swimming against a relentless digital tide, while struggling to stay afloat amidst competing priorities. These concerns are real, and we want parents to know that they are not alone.
To address these concerns, MDDI has rolled out resources for parents and is strengthening efforts to make them more accessible in the community. Parents can access tips on how to guide their children's digital interactions on IMDA’s Digital for Life portal. These are tailored to different digital milestones in the parenting journey, such as a child's first device use, first social media use and first online game.
Families with young children will also be supported by digital parenting workshops and webinars. These sessions are designed to meet different needs. Some support parents of younger children, while others engage families with youths who may encounter more challenging online situations. We will continue to do more to support digital parenting and welcome suggestions on how we can improve our programmes.
Preparing for the digital world requires us to not only be safe online users, but also purposeful and discerning learners. We need to prepare our students and educators for an AI-enabled future, as Mr Henry Kwek and Ms Lee Hui Ying highlighted. Educators play a critical role in the development of essential skills for our students.
Minister of State Jasmin Lau spoke earlier on enhancing public sector digital capabilities. We are also doing more to grow educators' knowledge and understanding about technology. Last year, MDDI and MOE launched the Smart Nation Educator Fellowship, and 58 fellows attended the inaugural run. I am glad that the feedback has been positive. Many participants shared that the Smart Nation Educator Fellowship has sharpened their abilities to guide students to become thoughtful and responsible users of technology.
Mr Ezal bin Sani, a Lead Teacher for History in Jurong Secondary School, was one of the Smart Nation Educator Fellowship fellows. For a Secondary 1 History inquiry-based project on Singapore's migrant Chinese communities, Ezal’s students conducted AI-powered interviews with historical \"coolies\" and used ElevenLabs or Google NotebookLM to create their own AI podcasts. Initiatives like this demonstrate how powerful educational technology can be in our classrooms, with students critically assessing the information gleaned from AI tools to enhance their learning process.
This year, we are refining the fellowship to focus on the power and possibilities of AI. Through workshops and industry visits, educators will better appreciate how AI is relevant in the workplace. This can in turn support students' development of AI skills and competencies. We will update programmes in our schools to meet emerging needs, just as we have done before. As the Prime Minister shared, AI literacy is fundamental digital competency that will become even more important going forward.
Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Darryl David asked about the Government's plans to make digital skills and tools available to every child, regardless of background. We will continue to ensure that AI literacy programmes remain accessible in our schools.
IMDA is working with MOE to update the Code for Fun programme in our primary and secondary schools to integrate AI skills as core baseline capabilities for all students. We will make this available to all schools in 2027. Primary school students will learn the basics of AI, such as creating digital storybooks. Secondary school students will learn to use AI to create solutions for real-world problems. As students experiment and learn with AI, they will also learn about the risks, limitations and responsible use.
For lower-income families, IMDA's DigitalAccess@Home scheme will continue to support them with subsidised broadband and computing devices.
I thank Mr Fadli Fawzi, Ms Jessica Tan, and Mr Sharael Taha for their interest in public education initiatives to strengthen citizens' digital literacy and resilience, including for our seniors and persons with disabilities. Today, citizens can look to IMDA's Digital Skills for Life resources to pick up skills to navigate digital spaces. This includes how to use Generative AI confidently and safely, as well as how to identify AI risks, such as misinformation, scams and deepfakes.
Our libraries also provide important touchpoints for digital learning. The National Library Board's (NLB's) S.U.R.E programme, which stands for Source, Understand, Research, Evaluate, encourages Singaporeans to evaluate the credibility and reliability of information. NLB will roll out new resource packages and outreach programmes under SURE to build information literacy skills. NLB will also offer roving experiential showcases across public libraries and other public spaces. Members of the public can experience the uses and benefits of AI, and how to use GenAI safely and responsibly.
We will continue to provide targeted support for vulnerable groups. At SG Digital Community Hubs across Singapore, seniors can learn how to use digital services for daily tasks, such as booking medical appointments and mobile banking. I would like to reassure Ms Sylvia Lim that the Government will continue to adopt a \"digital first, but not digital only\" approach. Citizens, particularly seniors, who need in-person support will still be able to receive assistance at Government agencies' physical service touchpoints and at ServiceSG Centres.
We will also continue to collaborate with Digital for Life partners to help persons with disabilities participate meaningfully in our digital world. For instance, Guide Dogs Singapore developed a toolkit to help members of the visually impaired community learn to use low vision accessibility features on the smartphone, such as the VoiceOver function.
Through these efforts, we are building an inclusive Singapore where every citizen can benefit from our digital future. Sir, allow me to say a few words in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Chairman, mastering new skills can feel daunting sometimes, but the learning experience becomes more rewarding with support from our peers and the community. Digital technologies, including AI, have become important ingredients in our daily lives and for the jobs of tomorrow. Thus, it is important that all of us are equipped to not only have digital skills, but to use them confidently and thoughtfully. Everyone is at a different stage of their digital journey. Some are just starting to explore and experiment, while others are focused on enhancing their technical skills and putting them into practice.
To work towards making our vision of an AI-Confident Malay/Muslim community a reality, M³ has launched Langkah Digital, led by Yayasan MENDAKI. As I announced last month, Langkah Digital is designed around three key elements – Kenal, Guna, Yakin. Kenal (Knowing) helps people learn more about safe digital exploration; Guna (Use) encourages integrating technology in daily life; and Yakin (Confident) nurtures lifelong digital learning so that the community can continue to adapt independently. This step-by-step approach allows us to engage different segments of our community and provide support that matches the level of their digital journey.
Staying true to our \"gotong-royong\" spirit, MENDAKI will bring together the whole community, including the M³ family, Malay/Muslim organisations, the MENDAKI Professional Networks, as well as partners from the public and private sectors. A good example is Mr Luqman-nul Hakim, who works as an AI engineer and has stepped forward to support Langkah Digital.
Luqman has led sessions on AI at Al Khair Mosque for over 30 participants and facilitated an AI workshop for more than 60 participants. These programmes help cater to individuals with different abilities and interests in our community. Some introduce AI tools such as ChatGPT, while others focus on more advanced skills such as prompt engineering.
Digital champions, such as Luqman are the driving force behind Langkah Digital. They not only help to bring different groups together but also foster meaningful dialogue and collaboration around technology.
Although I just launched the programme last month, I am heartened that we have rolled out 12 AI-related workshops and events in the community so far, reaching over 400 participants. I hope that Langkah Digital will empower even more members in our community.
(In English): Mr Chairman, as technology keeps evolving, it is not enough for us to hone our technical skills. To harness AI wisely, we need to ask the right questions and be discerning about the answers we get. Therefore, our children need to develop capabilities to read and process information effectively from young.
I am spotlighting reading because it is a skill that is increasingly at risk in a world where information is delivered at break-neck speeds, often in short-form and visual formats. Reading is essential for learning new skills. It improves our attention span, develops critical thinking skills, and builds creativity and empathy. All these are essential qualities for us to use technology for the benefit of ourselves and others. Promoting reading is therefore important in addressing the concerns raised by Members about social and intellectual degradation that might come with AI.
Ms Cassandra Lee asked how NLB is refreshing the libraries' role with families in mind. We can start with encouraging parents to cultivate good reading habits in their children from a young age. This also provides our children with a screen-free alternative in our device-heavy era.
This is why NLB will continue to partner with MOE to strengthen the library programme for schools. This includes an upcoming School Librarians of the Future Summit and webinars to empower student librarians as reading advocates and champions for information literacy. Student librarians can also broaden their learning, through volunteering, student attachments and learning journeys. NLB will do more to foster strong reading habits and plans will be shared in due course.
Our libraries also play a vital role in preserving and sharing our Singapore Stories. These stories form the bedrock of our community and ensure that our collective experiences are not lost to time.
To mark Singapore's 60 years of Independence, NLB and MDDI launched a book and exhibition on The Albatross File, which documents the events, personalities and debates surrounding Singapore's journey to Independence. I thank Mr Christopher de Souza for commending the teams involved. The exhibition has resonated strongly with the public. Since December, over 130,000 have visited; 96% said they left with a deeper understanding of the path Singapore took.
To Mr Fadli Fawzi's observation that the exhibition departs from what he was taught in school, there has always been differing points of view on Singapore's separation from Malaysia. This is unsurprising, given the nature of historical accounts.
For example, British, Australian and New Zealand archives released from the early 1990s reflected the perspectives of their diplomats and governments. In 1998, full versions of the perspectives of Singapore's officials appeared. Prof Albert Lau's \"A Moment of Anguish\" remains the most definitive account of the separation. The first volume of founding Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew's memoir also featured a gripping account.
As stated in the editorial notes of The Albatross File: Inside Separation, nothing material to the understanding of the separation was held back. The documents published were reproduced in full, without redaction. Members of the public, including Members of Parliament, can approach the National Archives of Singapore to look at all this declassified material and form their own nuanced views.
Mr Fadli also raised the proposal for a Freedom of Information Act to automatically declassify records and release them publicly after 25 years.
The experience of some countries with similar legislation shows that most, if not all, will still have carve-outs. In fact, implementing an Freedom of Information Act could lead unintentionally to more opacity. Mr Tony Blair's 2010 memoirs record his views on the UK's Freedom of Information Act, which was enacted while he was Prime Minister. He said, after leaving office, that \"The Freedom of Information Act…is a dangerous Act [because] governments need to be able to debate, discuss and decide issues in confidence. Without the confidentiality, people are inhibited and the consideration of options is limited in a way that isn't conducive to good decision making. In every system that goes down this path, what happens is that people watch what they put in writing and talk without committing to paper. It's a thoroughly bad way of analysing complex issues.\"
In other words, a Freedom of Information Act can hinder rather than facilitate governance because issues deemed too sensitive are simply not documented. Therefore, our starting point should be prioritising transparency that leads to good governance and an informed citizenry instead of transparency for its own sake.
We already have a mechanism for members of the public to request access to Government records for reference or research, which historians and researchers have used to nominate documents for review. The Government has made more records available to the public over time and will continue to do so.
Singapore stories not only enhance our understanding of history but enable us to reimagine our future. The SG60 Heart&Soul Experience, which was visited by two million visitors in the second half of last year, allowed Singaporeans to express their hopes and dreams for Singapore. I am glad to hear that it was well received, with most visitors giving it a rating of five out of five.
The Experience was also an example of utilising digital innovations, such as AI and immersive storytelling, to present a multisensory experience. By pairing the experience with NLB's resources, visitors had the opportunity to learn more about using AI in their daily life.
To conclude, Mr Chairman, as digital technologies become increasingly complex and sophisticated, their potential to transform our society and lives, whether for better or worse, has never been greater.
As the Malay peribahasa or proverb reminds us, \"Berat sama dipikul, ringan sama dijinjing.\" We share responsibilities and work together to overcome challenges, be it big or small. Harnessing technology for good as well as mitigating the negative impacts of technologies require more than just technical knowledge. Ultimately, we need a whole-of-society effort that brings together the experiences and perspectives of the Government, industry, academia, civil society and citizens.
Let us work together to chart a bright and promising digital future for generations to come. [Applause.]
The Chairman: We have just around 25 minutes for clarifications. I will prioritise Members who have filed cuts according to the amount of time they have filed. Mr Sharael Taha.
Mr Sharael Taha: Thank you, Chairman. I thank the Minister and the political office holders for their comprehensive response. I have a few supplementary questions.
I believe the Minister did not get an opportunity to address my cut on the role of NAIC. What precisely is its role? Will it have execution authority or oversee cross-Ministry implementation or remain advisory? And how will the NAIC integrate economic strategy under MTI with digital governance under MDDI to ensure a coordinated delivery?
Also, on NAIS 2.0, what progress has been made and what did we learn from implementing NAIS 2.0 that will shape our current plans?
My last supplementary question is on trust and regulatory credibility. Minister Josephine Teo shared that Singapore is known for our trust and regulatory credibility. How can we operationalise this trust? Will we consider establishing a formal trusted AI certification regime for high-risk AI systems deployed in finance, healthcare and aviation? Maybe that could be our differentiator and competitive advantage.
The Chairman: Minister Josephine Teo.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Chairman, that is quite a few questions. I will try my best.
Perhaps to address Mr Sharael Taha's question on what we have learned from the implementation of NAIS 2.0, the Prime Minister launched NAIS 2.0 in December 2023. So, it is just a little over two years since we formally started the process. If I were to say up to now, what we are learning from it? Maybe two or three key observations.
The first, perhaps to refer to the earlier handout that MTI distributed – this is on Kampong AI – as an example. I recall that around 2023, we had visited a corner of San Francisco that was known as Cerebral Valley. It was very captivating for us because the hacker houses had such an energy about them. Papers that were being published by universities in the morning, in the evening, they already have a talk and people would come in and say, this is how I am going to use it. Then, a week later, a prototype would have already been built and venture capitalists were invited for show and tell. You could see that this generated a kind of buzz that was very enviable.
We asked ourselves: can we do that? We really did not know how comprehensive our ecosystem was at the time, that would centre its attention on AI-related activities. So, we said, let us start with Lorong AI.
It was not called Lorong AI at the start. We just decided that we just have to bring the community together. We did not have our Cerebral Valley then. We just had to see whether it could take off. It turned out to move a lot faster and grow a lot bigger than we expected. I think last year, Lorong AI hosted something like 150 events with about 4,000 people. Because of that, we have the confidence to do Kampong AI.
But what is the reflection and what is the lesson learned there? It is that you can start small but dream big. You do not always have to have a Big Bang approach. That is the first observation.
The second observation I would say is that in terms of how we have implemented ideas, actually, gaps are good opportunities. Let me explain a little bit.
After we did Lorong AI, we were also building up AI Centres of Excellence. If we did not have a good momentum with the AI Centres of Excellence, it will be hard to now try to push ahead with Champions of AI. We do not have a base to begin with.
And one of those particular Centres of Excellence was in manufacturing. When we looked at the activities being carried out at that Centre of Excellence, we realised that there are common problems that a sectorial Centre of Excellence could do. And then, it enabled us to think that perhaps in some sectors, there was a certain readiness for end-to-end transformation.
So, the national AI Missions, in a way, grew out of that effort too. Then, we asked ourselves, we now have activities in industry, we now have activities in Government, which Minister of State Jasmin Lau spoke about – AI activities. In research, things were also happening in a very positive way.
Microsoft has been in Singapore for years, but it was only last year that they set up a research entity here. Then Google DeepMind decided to open an office here.
What that tells us is that research activities are picking up pace, because AI top talents are attracted by bold ambition and a willingness to tackle the big questions, the problems that confound many people. So, we need to have that.
The gaps, being opportunities specifically apply in the talent space. We had started thinking broadly in terms of AI Creators. That would be the people in Microsoft Research, Google DeepMind. For example, in Google DeepMind, within the Singapore team, they are contributing to the development of the newest Gemini models.
So, we had thought about AI Creators, we had thought about AI Practitioners – machine learning engineers, data scientists – and we had thought about users – the broad base. As we were implementing the Centres of Excellence, we also realised that in between, you need people who both understand AI, not necessarily at the deepest level, but they have good domain expertise. There is this idea that you need \"bilingual\" talent – people who know enough of AI, know enough of their domain and they can marry the knowledge together.
Even in terms of how we think about the AI talent spectrum, what originally was a gap now turns out to be an opportunity for us to do something about it. That would be the second reflection.
The third relates specifically to your question about the role of NAIC.
There is a well-known saying. We use it very much to talk about social solidarity. It is an African saying. It goes, \"If you want to go fast, you go alone. If you want to go far, you go together.\"
It turns out that it applies to AI development too. If we only confine ourselves to the effort that can be applied within the verticals – MDDI, you do this; MTI, you do this; I think we will remain effective in our own ways, but we will not get to synergise. Lorong AI can become Kampong AI because there is JTC. If JTC has not been seized with this idea, then this growth could not have quite come about.
So, the NAIC is precisely to do these things. Bring the whole together. Make the whole bigger than the sum of its parts.
Today, agencies already cooperate. It tends to be one-to-one, but what we need is many-to-many cooperation and we need the mechanism to sort things out – where to prioritise, where to apply more resources, where the exploration is heading into a dead end, what kinds of policy changes that you might need.
So, the NAIC is not just an advisory role. Our Prime Minister has many things on his plate. He advises us on a whole range of things, but to chair the National AI Council is a very strong indication that we are keen on making AI transformation real for all Singaporeans and not just something that just continues to exist as a vision. We have to turn this into reality. That is what it is intended to be.
Very quickly, Mr Chairman, I think there was also a question about trust and regulatory credibility, and whether we will set up institutions to do that.
We have, in fact, taken steps. For example, quite apart from introducing model governance frameworks, we have set up a digital trust centre that is our designated AI Safety Institute. We also have the Centre of Advanced Technologies for Online Safety. These are institutions that have grown within academic organisations, but we will look for opportunities to collaborate with industry, with academia, to see how we can institutionalise this capability and turn it into an advantage for Singapore.
The Chairman: Ms Jessica Tan.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo: Sir, first of all, I would like to thank Minister for talking about the AI Impact programme and democratising AI. I think it is very important, so I do want to ask a little bit of clarification around that, more from an individual and citizen standpoint. How does this pan out and how can the ordinary citizen look forward to in terms of, what do they do with regards to the National AI Impact Programme and how do they access that?
The other question I had was, related to this as well, in terms of digital literacy specific to AI. I did touch upon the point about life stages and whether in terms of the digital literacy, as we are looking at it for citizens, even for workers, how do we ensure that this is looked at from a life stage standpoint, rather than from an age or just a profile standpoint?
And another question around responsible AI was that, given that it is widely used now and, in a lot of cases, for some very critical areas in terms of decision making, how do we ensure and how will the Government look at ensuring that biases are not kind of perpetuated? And the last point on inclusivity, given that AI is going to be very much part of our lives and it is not something we can ignore, how are we going to look at the multiple languages and supporting those in terms of people who are not so proficient in English?
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Chairman, in terms of how citizens are going to access the National AI Impact Programme, it again will not be solely through the channels that MDDI and IMDA oversee. For one, we will work very closely with trade associations and chambers as well as professional bodies for outreach. There is very strong interest from these intermediaries to get the word out and we welcome their interest.
We already have existing programmes that serve as a useful base so, for example, the enterprise solutions will very largely be offered through the Productivity Solutions Grant scheme. The Productivity Solutions Grant is well known to many of our enterprises. The intermediaries are also familiar with it. I mentioned in my earlier speech that about 30% of the solutions are now AI-enabled. That will likely grow because of the interest and also because of the availability of the tools.
If we look at enterprises that already use some digital tools, the Member can imagine that the vendor goes to the enterprise and say, \"If you add this AI tool on top of it, actually, you can do more things than you were able to previously.\" So, this is one way to propagate on a base that is already quite ready. It is already quite well equipped.
For individuals, I mentioned that we will start, initially, with the accountancy and legal professions and then look to extend towards fields like human resources (HR). HR, for example, easily has 50,000 members, 50,000 practitioners. So, through their own mechanisms, individuals can also be reached. So, those are the different ways in which we will propagate the access to the National AI Impact Programme.
We welcome suggestions. If anyone comes to us and say, \"This is what you can do.\" We are very keen to understand how. I believe that our institutes of higher learning are also very much involved because they interact with the private sector and they have a lot of students who are interested to prototype solutions in order to implement them, so we will look at those as well.
The Member's question about responsible AI biases, how to make sure they are not perpetuated. The way we approach the potential risks and harms of AI is a multi-prong one. In some instances, we already have safeguards that perhaps need to be sharpened. So, for example, pornography that could be enabled by AI, child sexual exploitation material. These are already prohibited under the Penal Code. We can update the Penal Code to make it clear. We can also think of instances, like the Workplace Fairness Act. If there is a demonstration of bias in the recruitment process, then that piece of legislation can be relied upon, because it does not depend on how the unfairness, the discrimination was produced, so we can deal with it that way.
But there will be instances where existing legislation, existing laws, existing measures are not enough. So, for example, we introduced the Elections (Integrity of Online Advertising), or ELIONA, legislation. This was specifically to deal with AI-generated content that are applied to candidates in an election context, so we will continue to maintain this sort of nimble approach. Use existing laws, sharpen the laws, if and when necessary, but also do not hesitate to introduce new measures when they are needed and when it is clear what can be done about them.
So, those are the things that we will do. Inclusivity, I fully agree with you, multiple inclusivity. I fully agree with you, multiple languages — perhaps I will ask Senior Minister of State Tan to reply because he has been working on this.
The Senior Minister of State for Digital Development and Information (Mr Tan Kiat How): Sir, to elaborate on Minister Josephine's point about inclusivity, specifically around languages.
As we know, Singapore is a multilingual society and different communities take a lot of pride in their languages, especially mother tongues. One part of the work is that MDDI looks at, specifically the \"I\" part of MDDI, is around information. There is a committee where we bring in academics, representatives from the media, the schools, around translation. That is the National Translation Committee, which I help to oversee.
One project that we are working on, as a very good example of how we are thinking about practical tools for AI, is about translation. And translation is not just by using any tool, any large language models (LLMs), because you need local context, local nuances, for example, not everybody understands what \"chope the table\" is.
So, how do you translate some of these local terms, especially local specific-context terms into different mother tongue languages? The National Translation Committee has been working with GovTech and Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) on a number of LLMs and to fine tune a model for a local context. One of the objectives is to, hopefully, have a model which we can use by the later part of this year, to allow greater inclusivity and accessibility for those not speaking English to access our public-facing websites and other materials. And to support Public Service agencies translate many of the material, which is in English, into different mother tongue languages – Malay, Mandarin, Tamil – much more easily.
And how can we do so across the board, at-scale, across the Public Service? So, we are developing an AI tool for that and we hope to share more details in the later part of the year, but this is just one specific example how we are using AI technology. Not just \"copying and pasting\" what other countries are doing, but fine-tuning, adapting, customising for our local context, and do so in a way that creates value and adds that element of inclusivity for all Singaporeans. We hope to share more details later and hope to get the support of all Members.
The Chairman: We are fast approaching guillotine time, so I will take one more clarification. Mr Henry Kwek.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry: Chairman, I would like to ask MDDI on what MDDI can do to set and communicate the right expectations for our people citizenry, given the fact that we are vastly transforming the way we interact with the citizens. I applaud the MDDI for the ambition and the determination to transform the way we do e-services. Basically, in a nutshell, we are asking the Government to do more with less; do faster; do differently, not just transacting with Government, but also giving people advice, like SupportGoWhere. So, it is quite a big way of transformation of how we do things, in terms of Government service.
And we are also, instead of developing services through coding, we are asking our civil service to orchestrate AI agents to code. So, it is fairly different. With new ways of doing, there is always a risk of things not working out initially. So, how are we going to set the right expectations? Like I think Minister of State Lau has mentioned that Singaporeans have high expectation of e-services.
Maybe we could look at how Google does it, when they deliver services to all of us, they have Google Beta, Google Preview, using this to communicate to people that some services —
The Chairman: Mr Kwek.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry: — may be a trial, and how can we better communicate the expectations? Yes, I will stop here.
The Chairman: Minister Josephine Teo, please, if you could keep your response concise.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Minister of State Jasmin Lau can supplement, but maybe very quickly, on citizen expectations. We do not see it in a bad way. The Member and I use digital services all the time. And for us as citizens to want the Government to do better, in terms of digital Government services delivery, is a very natural thing. And so, we want to hold ourselves to higher standards.
But the Member's point, I think is a very useful one to keep in mind, which is that the expectations around failures, the expectations around what we may need to do to introduce more security that could come at the expense of some convenience that we have been used to, that is something that we need to socialise more people to.
In cybersecurity, we always say that there is a trade-off. When things are able to move in a very fast way, you worry about whether the security features have been properly built-in, and there may be times that we need to prioritise the security more than the convenience. So, the same for some of the services that we may have to offer, we do not know for a fact that we need that sort of thing and we will try, not to purposely, to deliberately, introduce inconvenience. But if and when we need to, we have to explain to people and do so properly. I do not know whether Minister of State Jasmin Lau wants to add on.
The Chairman: Minister of State Jasmin, you have one minute.
Ms Jasmin Lau: I thank Mr Henry Kwek for asking the clarification, because it gives us a chance to explain to the rest of Singaporeans how we try to optimise. I mentioned faster and better services just now, but it is very important that we do not view digital transformation as just one or two metrics. Our systems must be fast, but also secure. Efficient, but also resilient. Ambitious, but also trusted. And so, we cannot afford to optimise one dimension over another. It is very educational, and I hope more Singaporeans can understand that we must optimise across all dimensions – speed, security, cost and trust.
The Chairman: Thank you, Minister of State. On that note, Mr Sharael Taha, would you wish to withdraw your amendment, please?
Mr Sharael Taha: I was hoping to ask another supplementary question, but I will take your guidance, Mr Chairman.
The Chairman: No. No. No. [Laughter.]
Mr Sharael Taha: Okay. Mr Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Minister Josephine Teo, Senior Minister of State Tan Kiat How, Minister of State Rahayu, Minister of State Jasmin Lau and the Permanent Secretary of MDDI, and the whole MDDI team for the responses and the great work that they do. I would also like to thank our GPC and fellow Members for submitting 25 cuts and with more than three hours of debate, leaving no stone unturned; and I am quite sure quite a few of us would like to ask a few more supplementary questions.
AI features prominently in this Budget. AI is not a conventional policy domain. It evolves not over decades but over months, if not weeks. Frontier models double in capacity within short cycles, agentic systems are emerging with autonomous decision-making capacity, and geopolitical contentions affect —
The Chairman: Mr Sharael Taha.
Mr Sharael Taha: — energy, data flows and supply chain. Yet, amid this ambiguity is where ambiguity and velocity —
The Chairman: \tMr Sharael Taha.
Mr Sharael Taha: — MDDI must juggle many things at once, drive innovation, safeguard trust, develop the deep and broad-based skill sets, protect the vulnerable and secure national competitiveness. That is no small task, and I would like to thank our team in MDDI for doing all of that. And with that, Mr Chairman, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment.
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $2,993,365,900 for Head Q ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $119,025,200 for Head Q ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply – Head K (Ministry of Education)","subTitle":"A competitive, connected and resilient economy, with diverse pathways and opportunities for all","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Chairman: Head K, the Ministry of Education (MOE). Mr Darryl David.
Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Chairman, Sir, I move, \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head K of the Estimates be reduced by $100\".
Sir, we are living through a structural shift in how knowledge, skills and work intersect. Artificial intelligence (AI) is not merely another technological trend. It is reshaping industries, transforming organisational modes and models and redefining the skills needed to create value.
In Singapore, the transformation is evident across sectors. Firms are accelerating AI adoption and workers are seeking opportunities to reskill and adapt. Yet, recent industry discussions reported in The Straits Times highlight that many small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are struggling with AI implementation, particularly in workforce training and identifying clear pathways forward. This underscores a critical point, that technological progress, if unsupported by structured education and training strategies, risks widening capability gaps rather than closing them.
The policy imperative is clear. To build a workforce capable of harnessing AI, AI literacy must be embedded across the entire learning life cycle, from the early years of schooling to continuing education and training (CET) for working adults.
Sir, in this AI-driven era, we must be deliberate about what constitutes foundation and what roles schools play in building it. AI literacy does not begin with sophisticated tools or computer programmes or complex algorithms. It begins much earlier, with students developing the ability to understand how systems work, recognise the limitations of automated output and exercise independent judgement.
In a world where generative AI can produce essays, code and analysis within seconds, the differentiator will not be access to technology. It will be the capacity to engage with these tools critically and to harness them to enhance meaningful work.
As AI tools become increasingly embedded in everyday life, foundational competencies must be sequenced more deliberately. AI literacy is cumulative. A student's ability to interrogate an AI system at graduation depends on habits of reasoning formed years earlier.
At the primary level, this means cultivating cognitive discipline – recognising patterns, following logical sequences, distinguishing correlation from causation and interpreting simple data. These are not merely technical proficiencies. They form the mental scaffolding required to understand how automated systems arrive at decisions.
But Sir, as students mature, abstraction and systems thinking can be introduced deliberately at the secondary level. Learners can examine how algorithms are designed, how datasets shape outputs and how human choices influence technological outcomes. And by pre-university, students should be capable of critical interrogation – evaluating AI-generated content, identifying limitations and weighing ethical trade-offs. This sequence reflects not only curricular design but developmental readiness. So, what we are talking about here is the scaffolding of AI learning, a scaffolding of AI education throughout the entire learning journey in schools.
Equally important is differentiation. Students with strong aptitude should have access to structured enrichment pathways – advanced computing modules with AI components, collaboration with AI Singapore on student projects, supervised industry mentorships and national AI challenge competitions.
Now, Sir, I understand that countries, such as Finland and South Korea, have implemented nationally structured AI curricula that integrate technical skills with ethics and civic awareness from an early age. Singapore should ensure that its approach is equally progressive, inclusive and systematic.
Sir, now on to the teaching, assessment and the core of education in the AI age. With this roadmap in place, the next challenge is how schools teach and assess in an AI-pervasive environment. Education in an AI age should not overload students with content but rethink pedagogy to emphasise reasoning, judgement and creativity. Now, these are competencies that AI cannot replicate.
Teachers should position AI as a tool to deepen learning, not as a shortcut. Lessons and projects could encourage students to question outputs, iterate solutions and critically evaluate information. Assessment practices must evolve accordingly. If AI tools are used in assignments, evaluation should thus measure meaningful application of concepts, the reasoning behind solutions and thought processes, rather than merely the final product.
Practical approaches could include reflective journals documenting AI use, oral defences to explain reasoning and process documentation, such as prompt logs or iterative drafts. Project-based assessments requiring real-time collaboration and problem-solving can further reveal student understanding and agency. Transparency, accountability and authentic demonstration of skills should guide assessment design rather than prohibit or limit AI use.
Equally important, Sir, is cultivating skills AI cannot replicate. Leadership, empathy, ethical judgement, collaboration, public speaking and resilience remain essential to holistic education. Teachers play an indispensable role in developing these capacities, ensuring students grow intellectually, socially and emotionally into confident, capable individuals. Education must remain about shaping thoughtful, adaptable citizens, not merely producing technically competent operators.
Sir, a word on teacher capacity and professional development. The success of an AI-ready curriculum depends on teachers. Even the best-designed lessons and assessments fall short if educators lack confidence in using AI tools, integrating them into learning or guiding responsible, ethical use. Strengthening teacher capacity is therefore essential.
Teachers in AI-augmented environments must act as facilitators, mentors and guides. They need proficiency not only in AI technologies but also in embedding them – how to embed them responsibly into lessons – designing assessments that measure critical thinking and supporting holistic development.
I urge MOE to implement tiered professional development programmes for teachers. Foundational training should cover AI tools and digital pedagogy while advanced modules focus on curriculum design, ethics and mentoring. And continuous professional development should track emerging AI trends to keep educators equipped.
And now, Sir, something on inclusive AI education for different learners' profile. As we advance AI literacy, we must support students with neurodiverse profiles, learning differences or disabilities. Tailored programmes and scaffolds are essential to ensure all learners can fully engage with AI learning environments.
Adaptive learning systems can personalise content to a student's pace, proficiency and cognitive profile, providing targeted support to address gaps and reinforce strengths.
Inclusion also depends on structured support within schools. Educators and learning specialists should be trained to use AI tools in ways to complement individual learning profiles. For example, analytics dashboards to identify early signs of struggle, designing customised practice pathways or integrating AI-assisted feedback to support self-paced learning.
The aim is not simply to adopt AI because it is available but to use it thoughtfully to respond to the diversity of learners in our classrooms. By embedding inclusive design principles in AI education, from platform design to classroom practice, we can ensure technology lifts all learners, not just those already advantaged. Inclusive AI education strengthens equity and affirms our commitment to leaving no student behind.
Sir, I would like to talk about AI in the classrooms right now to AI classrooms of the future. I think AI can be used, Sir, to really create learning environments in the hardware and the very structure of the classrooms to enhance how the classroom functions, to complement the ability of teachers to deliver in the classrooms. I had mentioned earlier, Sir, that core to our education experience, are our teachers, and may they always remain core, our physical teachers.
However, we can explore. How we can explore AI to perhaps enhance what a teacher is doing, create teacher avatars or one educator in the classroom, for example, that that person could be doing multiple things at the same time in different parts of the classroom. Now, this might sound like something from science fiction, but I believe that it is possible, Sir, to have a version, say, of a teacher Jeffrey in the classroom and then perhaps create AI avatars of teacher Jeffrey that could perhaps go and work in different groups in the classrooms concurrently and then come back again where teacher Jeffrey talks, say, to the rest of the classroom.
This would also address the issue of class sizes indirectly in a way. We have talked about class sizes and reducing class sizes for quite some time now over the past five, 10, even 15 years since I came into Parliament. And what we are talking about in class sizes is not so much reducing the class size per se but improving the ratio of the teacher and the student in the education experience. For example, if you have a class size of 20, one teacher is a ratio of 1:20. You can either reduce the class size to 10 or perhaps have two teachers come in. You have the same effect therefore of 1:10 ratio.
So, let us explore. Let us explore how we can perhaps use AI in a way that would be able to address the issue of class sizes in a creative manner, such that the end goal is not simply reducing the class size to smaller numbers in a class but enhancing and improving the teacher-student ratio.
Sir, I would like to move on now to creating an AI learning ecosystem for CET. Beyond the school classrooms, a robust AI education ecosystem requires infrastructure and support mechanisms to enable learning across life stages. While schools lay the foundation, working professionals must access structured pathways to upskill and remain relevant.
The Government could consider establishing a dedicated CET centre focused on AI and data literacy for adult learners. A dedicated AI CET centre could offer modular programmes ranging from foundational literacy to advanced applications in responsible AI governance, sector-specific problem solving and workplace integration. This would complement existing offerings from polytechnics and universities, such as Professional and Adult Continuing Education academies, which already provide professional courses in AI and data analytics.
Mr Chairman, artificial intelligence is reshaping the skills, work and society our young people will inherit. The foundation we lay today in schools through deliberate curriculum design, thoughtful pedagogy and inclusive learning will determine whether Singaporeans can navigate this transformation with confidence, creativity and responsibility. I urge MOE, the Government and other stakeholders to continue building a cohesive AI education ecosystem, one that nurtures curiosity, equips students for the future and ensures Singaporeans remain leaders and innovators in an increasingly digital, AI-augmented world.
[(proc text) Question proposed.(proc text)]
The Chairman: Mr Darryl David.
Mr Darryl David: Thank you, Sir, for indulging me again. Sir, at the 2024 National Day Rally, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong announced that the Gifted Education Programme (GEP), in its current form, would be discontinued and refreshed. This decision marks a pivotal moment in the evolution of Singapore's education system.
Since its inception in 1984, the GEP has played a crucial role in nurturing some of our most academically able students. Many alumni have gone on to contribute meaningfully across academia, Public Service and industry. The programme was, in many ways, a product of its time, a deliberate effort to ensure that academic excellence was not left to chance.
Yet, over the decades, legitimate questions emerged. The centralised model, which extracted students from their schools into smaller number of designated centres, inevitably reduced social mixing at a formative age. Whether or not elitism was intended, the programme also came to be perceived as accessible only to the affluent, especially with an increasing correlation between socio-economic status and academic results.
The new model, in which higher-ability pupils remain in their schools while attending after-school enrichment modules, reflects a broader shift in our educational philosophy, that excellence and inclusivity need not be mutually exclusive concepts. If implemented thoughtfully, this approach has the potential to stretch our brightest learners while strengthening, rather than fragmenting, our social fabric.
Unlike the Secondary School-Based Gifted Education (SBGE) model, which is concentrated in \"branded\" elite schools and mirrors many clustering tendencies of the old GEP, the revamped primary-level programme allows us to reimagine excellence in a more inclusive and socially integrated way.
Sir, I propose that after-school enrichment modules be situated in non-branded, non-elite schools rather than concentrated in a few established or prestigious primary schools. Such a design transforms these schools, many of which are located in heartland neighbourhoods, into local \"centres of excellence\", enabling students to stretch their abilities in environments that are both familiar, yet socially diverse.
Beyond academic growth, this approach exposes learners to peers from different socio-economic backgrounds, fostering empathy, resilience and social awareness, qualities as critical to a child's development as intellectual development and growth.
At the same time, neighbourhood schools can cultivate distinctive programmes and reputations for nurturing talent, creating a distributed ecosystem of excellence that benefits students, educators and the broader community.
Sir, on a practical note, high-ability students may need to attend different modules at different centres on different days, creating potential burdens in travel and scheduling. As such, I hope that thoughtful alignment of module locations and timetabling with students will ensure the programme remains accessible and manageable without placing undue strain on students, parents or caregivers, in terms of travelling from school to the centre.
The placement and operation of these centres is not merely administrative. It gives us the opportunity to stretch our brightest learners, broaden their perspectives and reinforce social cohesion, cultivating students who are academically capable and socially grounded.
Sir, the true value of the redesigned GEP lies not only in where students learn, but in what they experience. These after-school modules should not function as accelerated tuition, teaching more of the same content at a faster pace or providing direct advantage for the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE). Instead, they should broaden and deepen engagement with subjects in ways the standard curriculum cannot, fostering curiosity, creativity and applied thinking. They should thus provide guided opportunities for students to apply their skills in meaningful contexts.
For example, students in advanced English modules could explore literature, journalism or creative writing, extending well beyond what is assessed in schools or national examinations. Mathematics modules might introduce basic financial literacy, logic puzzles, or problem-solving in everyday contexts. Science modules could offer hands-on experimentation, design-thinking challenges, or introductory environmental and sustainability projects suitable for nine- to 12-year-olds.
To complement these experiences, enrichment modules could include informal mentorship opportunities with educators, researchers, or even industry professionals who can guide students' exploration in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), the arts, or humanities. While not formalised as a teaching approach, these interactions allow students to gain early insight into real-world applications of knowledge, nurturing responsibility, resilience and ethical awareness alongside intellectual growth.
Sir, the aim of this new model should not be to separate students by ability, but to cultivate diverse strengths in every learner. By situating enrichment within neighbourhood schools, broadening the scope of learning beyond examinations and nurturing pathways for high-potential students, we can combine academic excellence with inclusivity and social cohesion.
Sir, this approach aligns with the broader vision of Singapore's education pathways, a system that values personalised learning, nurtures diverse strengths and emphasises inclusion and social cohesion.
Ms Elysa Chen (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Sir, for 40 years, the GEP concentrated differentiated instruction in nine schools. From 2027, it will be discontinued in its current form.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
At its best, the GEP fostered curiosity and independent thinking. We should preserve that spirit, empowering bright and motivated students to take ownership of their learning. The expertise built over four decades should also be spread system wide. More teachers need professional development in differentiated instruction, and more students should access enrichment beyond the examinable syllabus to prepare them for future-oriented work.
We must also manage the risks even as we seek to develop our high-ability learners and avoid students feeling like they are in a pressure cooker, with stiff competition between peers. A National Institute of Education (NIE) study in 2024 of intellectually gifted secondary students in Singapore schools found that their academic environments often produced a socio-emotional state of lowered self-esteem, heightened stress and increased effort, despite outward success.
May I ask how will MOE resource teachers across schools to deliver differentiated instruction well? How will this expertise be scaled across the system? Will MOE adopt more child-led approaches, given that higher-ability learners can be self-directed? Will MOE encourage more peer learning, so high-ability learners shift from a competitive mindset to a collaborative one? And how will schools safeguard students' psychosocial development and self-actualisation in a high-pressure environment?
Let us ensure that in nurturing our brightest minds, we cultivate not just their knowledge, but their confidence, curiosity and capacity to thrive as whole, resilient individuals.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Sir, Singapore's class sizes remain large. As of 2024, classrooms averaged 34 pupils at the primary level and 33 in secondary schools. This is significantly larger than the average in advanced industrialised countries where the numbers are 21 and 23 respectively and speak to the disparity that still exists in the amount attention our kids from their teachers in our public schools, relative to other countries.
To be clear, this is not an argument that smaller class sizes automatically translate into superior outcomes. That evidence is, indeed, mixed, although there is indication that the greatest benefits do come in the early grades and when egregiously large classes of 40 are moderated into something closer to 30.
However, that is far stronger evidence that smaller class sizes improve things like classroom management, strengthen student learning and reduces teacher's stress. This is eminently commonsensical and is one that is already abundantly clear when one actually speaks to teachers.
Notably, the Ministry has also considered that smaller class sizes have clear benefits in certain specific circumstances. For instance, in recognition of the challenges faced by the young learners adapting to a new educational setting, Primary 1 and 2 classes are kept at 30 students. Children in the former GEP, who may require more customised learning to fully unlock their intellectual potential, enjoy classrooms of closer to 20-plus, and foundation classes, which focus on building fundamentals for students who require additional support, range between 10 and 20 students.
I argue that the benefits of smaller classrooms should not just be limited to these special cases. Furthermore, the most recent edition of the Teaching and Learning International Survey points to another clear problem with large classes. It taxes our already overworked teachers. Our teachers spend more than 47 hours a week working, six hours more than their Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) counterparts. Paradoxically, these added hours come at the expense of classroom hours. Teachers in the OECD managed to squeeze in almost 23 hours teaching, compared to only 18 here.
Disappointingly, however, the news that Singapore will increase teacher recruitment from 700 to 1,000 annually was followed by a sucker punch. The Allied Educators in teaching and learning would be scaled back. This is the opposite direction of where we should be heading. Taken together, it is clear that the debate is not so much about whether we should reduce our class sizes, but about how. The straightforward solution is, of course, to hire more teachers.
The Ministry standard response to this has been that this will compromise the quality of the teachers that we hire while robbing other sectors of talent. MOE also says that there is a dearth of teaching talent. I have always found such arguments to be disingenuous. After all, are we implicitly suggesting that teachers from two decades ago, where there were more of them as a share of the workforce, were somehow not of the same quality as teachers today, or the investments in our future workforce are somehow a lower priority than those that drive our economy today?
In a sense, economics also tells us the solution. Should we worry about the ability to attract talent into teaching? And the answer is simple. We should pay our teachers more or reduce their workload. This will solve the chicken and egg problem of teachers who otherwise wish to remain in the profession but leave due to burnout. As any human resources professional knows, retention is more than half the battle compared to recruitment.
Even if we believe that the transition to smaller class sizes will take time, there is a more immediate solution. We can reduce the effective size by adding a teaching aid or Teaching Assistant for every classroom. Such Teaching Assistants can guide students that lag behind during breakout sessions or handle disruptive students so that the teacher can carry on with the curriculum. Another upshot of such professionals is that they can also take on administrative and planning tasks or at the very least, do so in collaboration with the main teacher. This burden is clearly something that teachers struggle with, as it occupies the majority of their time, distracts them from what they were primarily hired to do and adds unduly to their stress levels.
Sir, even if we accept that learning journeys and co-curricular supervision are valuable parts of holistic education, they are undeniably secondary to instruction per se. Redirecting the workload of teachers away from non-teaching tasks can only improve educational delivery. I, therefore, reiterate the Workers' Party call to cap class sizes closer to the OECD average, which is currently at 21, especially at the primary level; failing which to complement every classroom with teaching and learning Allied Educators or Teaching Assistants that will serve the students and ensure that they succeed in the classroom of tomorrow.
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Sir, the education arms race in Singapore is real and it now has three fronts.
First, the PSLE. MOE's move from T-scores to achievement levels was thoughtful and reduced fine differentiation. But when families still believe that performance at age 12, Primary 6, influences access to certain secondary schools and future pathways, they will still invest more time, more effort and money to secure an advantage.
In 2023, households spent $1.8 billion on private tuition. The top 20% spent more than four times what the bottom 20% did. When stakes are concentrated, pressure and spending concentrate. That is the dynamic of an arms race.
The second race: Direct School Admissions (DSA). DSA was designed to broaden definitions of success and its intention is right. But admissions rose from about 3,500 in 2019 to about 4,400 in 2023, around 11% of the cohort. Applications have surged with 38,000 in 2023. When DSA becomes another prized gateway, families respond with earlier coaching and curated portfolios. We now risk running two races, an academic race through PSLE and a portfolio race through DSA.
Third, the AI acceleration. In an AI-disrupted world, careers will shift multiple times and skill upgrading must be continuous over life. AI tools can now personalise practice and provide instant feedback. But many advanced tools are subscription-based or require strong home support. If unmanaged, AI becomes the new tuition and the arms race becomes digital.
Why does dismantling this arms race matter? Some argue that as long as employers value academic credentials, then competition is inevitable. But labour market norms will not shift overnight. Our education policy therefore must respond now. In an AI-driven world, success will depend less on early sorting and more on adaptability, deep thinking and lifelong learning habits. These cannot be built in a sprint to age 12.
What should we do? First, refine DSA so it broadens opportunity rather than amplifies preparation advantage – through structured outreach, authentic school-based nominations, and clearer criteria to reduce portfolio gaming.
Second, make AI a national equaliser – guarantee baseline access in schools, teach AI literacy, and shift assessments toward reasoning and authentic application.
But this may not be enough. MOE should consider a carefully safeguarded, voluntary 10-year through-train pilot from Primary 1 to Secondary 4. Under such a pilot, standards remain aligned with national expectations, students graduate with recognised qualifications such as the GCE, mobility and transfer options are preserved, and subject-based banding can start at an earlier age and deploy teachers according to the needs of the students using a “flexible class size” model instead of a “universal small class size” model. Not small classes everywhere, but right-sized classes, flexible and fit for purpose. Evaluation should examine academic performance, student well-being, tuition reliance and socio-economic mobility. Scaling should be considered if outcomes are at least as strong, with reduced pressure.
Sir, we do not have a weak system. But there is urgency in building an education system ready for a very different future, one centered on lifelong learning, adaptability and strong character. Dismantling the PSLE, DSA and AI-driven arms race is only the beginning of redesigning education for the long race ahead.
Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Chairman, during the recent Lunar New Year, my soon-to-be 11-year-old cousin Denise asked me a question I could not answer. She asked, \"Why does the PSLE have to exist?\" Before I could respond, Denise clarified herself. \"I'm not saying no exams. I understand we need to be assessed. But why does how I perform on a single day determine the outcome of my six years in primary school? If AI can do so many things, why do I still need to memorise so many things for PSLE? Why can't we just add up the scores of all of my weighted assessments?\" My response was, why indeed?
What struck me the most was not the stress that Denise had described, one and a half years away from sitting the PSLE. It was a decision that she had already made on her own. Going into Primary 5, she had pre-emptively dropped Higher Chinese, not because she had done badly but because she was worried she could not cope in Primary 6. She had looked at the road ahead, thought about her korkor and jiejie's experiences and decided to limit herself before a single PSLE paper had been sat.
While I had no good answer for Denise, I promised her that I would raise this in Parliament.
What Denise had identified intuitively is a tension that sits at the heart of our education system. Our desired outcomes of education for our children to become confident persons, self-directed learners, active contributors and concerned citizens. By the end of primary school, we want our students to know their strengths and areas for growth. Yet we assess six years of learning via a high stakes, timed, written examination across four subjects in a week. We say one thing and we measure another.
This is not a new observation, but it has never been more urgent. We just passed a Budget that commits billions to AI adoption that urges Singaporeans to move up the value chain, to exercise judgement, creativity and human insight. Yet come September, will we be assessing the 35,000 12-year-olds who will sit the PSLE on any of these skills? I welcome the long overdue review of our education system.
The WP has proposed making the PSLE optional. Students who are academically inclined can choose to sit the exam and compete for a select number of academically specialised secondary schools. Every other student should have a default through-train pathway to a partner secondary school. We should have an education system where the default is that every child passes through compulsory education without a high stakes written exam determining their trajectory at age 12.
The question is not whether to assess, but how. Removing PSLE as a default would free up months of curriculum time currently consumed by PSLE exam preparation and give our students more time and space to develop genuine strengths, deeper interest in subjects and also 21st Century Core Competencies.
Denise did not ask us to make school easier, she just asked for it to make sense.
Ms Lee Hui Ying (Nee Soon): Mr Chairman, education should be joyful. Yet in Singapore, once every six years, parents face intense pressure over two milestones: Primary 1 registration and the PSLE. The uncertainty of school placements, combined with the high stakes of academic outcomes, creates enormous stress – stress that no parent should face alone.
The Primary 1 registration process focuses on what the parents have done. Whether they live nearby, are alumni, or volunteer. We should spotlight our children instead. We go great lengths to get priority. I have deep respect for their efforts to do what they believe is best for their children. But we must reflect on how or whether the system unintentionally amplifies anxiety, undermines fairness and detracts from the schooling experience.
As MOE embarks on a review of the Primary 1 registration process, I have two points to make. How does the current system create stress? In our meritocratic society, every child who works hard should have the opportunity to thrive. One practical step could be removing the secondary school affiliation advantages, so all students compete on a fair footing.
Second, can the process better support students of diverse backgrounds and talents? The system should feel like Harry Potter’s Sorting Hat, helping parents choose the school where their child can maximise their own unique potential. Let us centre the child – and match or sort each one to a school where their unique potential can flourish.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Sir, Chairman, the Grow Well SG initiative correctly identifies sleep as a fundamental pillar of the seed habit framework, referring to sleep, eat, exercise and device usage. I am calling for MOE to set a national standard to synchronise school start times to 8.30 am for primary, secondary schools and junior colleges, alongside an integrated school day specifically for primary school levels. This build on calls by my hon friend, Sengkang Member of Parliament Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, regarding the benefits of later start time for adolescent health.
Current data is sobering. The 2024 Singapore Youth epidemiology and resilience study shows nearly 85% of secondary school students feeling unrested, while Duke NUS research indicates they average only six and a half hours of sleep, well below the recommended eight to 10 hours.
The stakes are equally high for our primary school students. Between ages seven and 12, a child's brain and body are in a state of rapid fundamental construction. Science tells us that deep sleep stage, non-Rapid Eye Movement sleep is when the pituitary gland releases the vast majority of growth hormones necessary for physical development. For these younger children, getting the recommended 10 hours of sleep is not a luxury. It is a biological requirement for physical health and cognitive wiring. When a primary school student is chronically under slept, the first thing to suffer is executive function, the ability to manage emotions, follow instructions and focus. We see this manifesting in classrooms as increased irritability and the lack of resilience. By failing to protect their sleep, we are effectively handicapping their formative years, trading long-term neurological health for short-term academic grind.
For adolescents, this is a matter of biology. During puberty, the brain undergoes a phase delay. Their bodies do not release melatonin until much later. It has been said that waking a teen at 6.00 am is physiologically equivalent to waking an adult at 3.00 am. We cannot legislate against the circadian rhythm.
While MOE has brought forward personal learning device default sleep modes to 10.30 pm, we must also address wake times. Currently, many primary school students on early bus routes are picked up from 6.00 am or even earlier. Shifting to 8.30 am ensures students do not start their day exhausted.
I propose an integrated school day for primary school starting at 8.30 am and ending at 3.30 pm. By incorporating co-curricular activities (CCAs), structured work instead of homework and remedials into these hours, we ensure that when a child reaches home, school responsibilities are largely complete, making the lights out boundary more achievable. Rather than relying on school level autonomy, we need a clear national standard. Let us set the bell for 8.30 am and give our children the rest they need to reach their full potential.
Mr Azhar Othman (Nominated Member): Trade is the lifeblood of Singapore, making it essential for us to facilitate as much trade as possible. This requires a focus on establishing numerous companies and fostering a mindset of entrepreneurship that can create significant impact.
Nurturing this entrepreneurial mindset and skill set should begin at a young age and schools are the perfect environment for this exposure. By integrating entrepreneurship into the CCAs, students can learn about business establishment and experience what it means to be an entrepreneur. There are already some schools implementing this but we should make this apply across all schools for students to be given the opportunity to participate.
This co-curricular activity can be one of many programmes launched in primary and secondary schools. Trade associations and chambers can play a vital role in developing the curriculum and nurturing young entrepreneurs. For instance, the Singapore Malay Chambers of Commerce and Industry has initiated a programme where students visit the chamber to gain insights into how businesses are established and operated.
By implementing such a curriculum, students will acquire a diverse range of skills, including marketing, distribution, operations, finance, resourcefulness and negotiation. Introducing entrepreneurship in schools will activate their innovative and creative minds, positioning us as a nation of creators and innovators capable of establishing companies and business solutions. In time, this initiative will not only increase the number of companies but also enhance our global trade presence, connecting Singapore with other regions of the world.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): Sir, last year, I asked the Minister about thermal inequality in school classrooms. Research shows that each temperature degree of temperature increase cuts learning by 1% to 2%, hitting lower-income students hardest. The Minister acknowledged that. He listed measures, cool paint, faster fans, physical education (PE) attire, mixed mode air conditioning for halls. For classrooms, continue to explore. If an unfair learning gap is forming, can we afford to wait?
Every MOE school is already air-conditioned: computer labs, science labs, libraries, lecture theatres, staff rooms, admin offices, all air-conditioned. The Ministry is now installing mixed mode air-conditioning in school halls, so the electrical infrastructure is there. The condensers are there. The maintenance contracts are there. The only rooms without air-conditioning are the classrooms where 420,000 children spend most of the day.
We should extend aircon to the rooms that matter most. A primary school teacher told me by 11.00 am in the morning, classrooms are unbearably hot. Fans just circulate hot air and create noise that drowns out teaching. Children cannot sit still. They ask to go to the toilet just to escape the heat. Teachers cannot teach effectively in that heat either.
A National University of Singapore study in Building and Environment found cognitive performance in Singapore's fan ventilated classrooms drops 9% in slightly warm conditions and 18% in warm conditions. There is no temperature standard for classrooms. To avoid thermal inequality, we should set one.
In 2023, the Government's Mercury Taskforce designated community centres and sports halls as airconditioned cooling spaces for the public. But for schools, reduce outdoor activities, relax dress code, send children home. So, we will air-condition community centres for adults, but close schools for the kids.
International schools and independent schools have air-conditioned classrooms. Neighbourhood schools have ceiling fans. The children who can least afford the learning penalty are paying it. Capital cost, less than $100 million for all classrooms, under 1% of the MOE's budget paid once. On running costs, 130 schools already have rooftop solar under Solar Nova. Expand it to all schools and offset the additional electricity partially.
I am not asking to switch on air-conditioning all day. Set a target temperature, switch on when the thermostat exceeds it. MOE headquarters (HQ) already runs a similar system, centralised air-conditioning with automatic start times and cut-offs. Just extend it to our classrooms.
Sir, two questions. Will MOE establish indoor temperature standards for classrooms? And will MOE commit to a timeline for a phased programme – beginning with primary schools – to install mixed mode air-conditioning in all classrooms?
Ms Diana Pang Li Yen (Marine Parade-Braddell Heights): Chairman, I rise to speak on inter-faith learning for social cohesion.
Singapore's harmony did not happen by accident. It is the result of deliberate policies and hard work, by our founding fathers over many decades, that build trust across the communities. I would describe this as the Singapore model of practical harmony – not just tolerance, but day-to-day cooperation, a shared civic space and the instinct to navigate differences thoughtfully in our society.
In a multiracial, multi-religion society, this harmony must be renewed in every generation. Chairman, schools are where this renewal can be made real.
Inter-faith learning should not be treated as a niche topic or something left to certain communities, certain neighbourhoods or only to those who are already exposed. If we want mutual understanding to become a shared national norm, every student should have balanced, age-appropriate exposure to major religions and beliefs that shape Singapore in a way that builds trust, reduces stereotypes and equips them to navigate difference with confidence.
Chairman, I therefore hope MOE can consider deepening inter-faith education in three practical ways.
First, MOE can strengthen a clear structured baseline of inter-faith literacy with age-appropriate content that focuses on understanding, common values and how Singapore manages diversity. The aim is not theological depth. The aim is civic understanding and mutual respect for the various religions in Singapore.
Second, MOE can make inter-faith learning more experiential. Lived, not classroom-based, and more fun. Schools can be supported to run structured dialogues, visits and interfaith learning journeys. Here, MOE can partner and work with non-Government organisations, for example, Inter-Religious Organisations, which has a long and extensive experience in engaging different faith communities in a constructive and practical way.
Third, MOE can support teachers and school teachers with ready-to-use resources and facilitation guides. Inter-faith discussions require careful handling. I believe many educators will welcome clearer frameworks, case studies and training so that they can facilitate confidently, especially when sensitive questions are being raised.
Chairman, my point is that ultimately, inter-faith understanding is not about preventing conflict, it is about building social capital. It is about ensuring that our young grow up with the instinct to ask, to listen and to respect. When students learn early that different faiths can coexist and share the same space, we strengthen the roots of cohesion that hold Singapore together.
If we want Singapore to remain united in a more polarised world, we must invest not only in academic outcomes, but also in the social fabric. Inter-faith learning is one of the quiet, high-impact investments that will pay dividends for decades to come.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Sir, our children are spending more time in sedentary digital engagement. This poses a risk to their physical well-being and cognitive development. Primary schools provide two to 2.5 hours of PE weekly, but logistics can eat into this short duration. This is insufficient to build a robust physical foundation in children, who need at least 60 minutes of moderate to rigorous physical activity daily.
Improving fundamental motor skills early enhances movement confidence, cultivates lifelong habits and broadens our pipeline for national athletes and combat-fit soldiers. Better physical fitness also improves academic performance and cognitive focus.
For a small nation, our competitive edge lies in the quality and resilience of our human capital. PE is therefore not a break from learning but a critical investment in our collective strength. I propose increasing the minimum PE curriculum time in primary schools to five hours per week. To address manpower constraints, MOE could supplement PE teachers with qualified coaches from the National Registry of Coaches and the National Registry of Exercise Professionals.
Not all PE time needs to be conducted by PE professionals. Subject-based teachers could conduct movement-based lessons where science concepts, like velocity, can be taught through active outdoor experimentation, bringing knowledge to life. To overcome space constraints, canteens could be fitted with nonslip flooring and movable furniture to create multi-purpose play areas. Surfaces in schools could be covered with plastic sports tiling to expand usable PE space.
By raising the floor of our children's fitness, we can raise the ceiling of what Singapore can achieve.
Ms Lee Hui Ying: Mr Chair, AI is transforming education. But our goal must be clear. Students should be not just learners or users of AI, but innovators and creators of AI. AI-ducation – the use of AI to personalise learning, identify gaps and guide teaching – can help students progress at their own pace while freeing teachers from repetitive tasks to focus on mentorship and meaningful learning.
To be AI-ready, how will students and teachers be equipped with the resources and skills needed to thrive in an AI-ducation environment?
Our next bound of staff development must focus decisively on AI proficiency.
First, AI can be a force multiplier to address staff strength challenges. We need to up the AI proficiency of all staff so they can free up \"human bandwidth\" for high-value student interactions. Second, teachers must be practitioners of AI before they can be teachers of AI. Beyond standard professional development, is there a structured AI proficiency roadmap so every teacher can use AI confidently as a daily assistant? How do we ensure AI tools are deployed to subtract admin workload rather than add a new layer of tech management duties? Is there a framework to regularly benchmark teachers' AI competency?
Our students and educators must not just use AI. They must innovate it, create it and lead its future.
Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik (Sengkang): Sir, in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The educational gap facing the Malay community is well-documented, but our understanding remains incomplete. We know the outcomes are unequal, yet we lack the granular data needed to design truly effective interventions. Let me be clear about what the three data points I proposed would enable.
First, annual university graduation rates by ethnicity would provide continuous monitoring rather than sporadic snapshots. We track economic indicators monthly, yet assess educational equity only when politically convenient. This inconsistency undermines accountability. Annual tracking would reveal whether our interventions are working or merely well-intentioned.
Second, data linking income and ethnicity in university access would answer a critical question: Are financial barriers or other factors driving the gap? MENDAKI subsidy data would show whether lower-income Malay students are accessing higher education at improving rates. Without this, we cannot distinguish between solvable financial constraints and deeper systemic issues.
Third, dropout rates by income and ethnicity would identify where students are falling through the cracks. Is attrition concentrated among low-income families? At specific educational levels? Among particular demographic groups? Each pattern requires different solutions. The Malay community deserves policies built on evidence, not presumption. Singapore has the technical capacity for this level of analysis.
Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh (Nominated Member): Thank you, Chairman. Sir, AI will not just change jobs, it will change learning. MOE has taken important steps to use AI to reduce administrative workload for teachers. That is welcome. But if we stop there, we risk using a transformational technology merely to improve efficiency.
I have four points to make.
First, AI must be used as a pedagogical tool, not merely as an efficiency tool. Beyond automation, how might we use AI to redesign pedagogy? AI can provide real-time feedback, identify misconceptions early and support differentiated instruction at scale. It allows students to progress at different paces and receive targeted support without stigma. Used thoughtfully, AI can shift assessment from ranking students against one another to tracking their individual growth.
MOE has also rightly spoken about reducing the arms race in education. AI could help us further rebalance the system, retaining necessary standards while placing greater emphasis on calibration and support. AI-enabled formative assessments provide real-time feedback, detect misconceptions early and adapt learning as students' progress, reducing reliance on a single high-stakes checkpoint. If such formative systems can be scaled up, we may have an opportunity to rethink the timing and role of high-stakes examinations.
Research suggests that very early high-stakes selection does not necessarily improve long-term outcomes. In some cases, it narrows learning and intensifies anxiety without improving standards. So, if continuous diagnostic assessment can provide clearer signals of student progress and learning gaps, then early high-stakes exams may not need to carry such disproportionate weight.
In that regard, will MOE pilot AI-enabled formative assessments at scale and could such pilots enable a recalibration of the timing and weight of high-stakes examinations? Relatedly, how does MOE evaluate whether early high-stakes selection meaningfully improves long-term student outcomes compared with delaying such assessments until students are older?
Second, as AI replaces more routine cognitive work, we must strengthen distinctly human capabilities. As structured cognitive tasks become automated, our advantage will lie increasingly in the human capabilities like imagination, collaboration, resilience, physical vitality and initiative.
MOE has long emphasised 21st century competencies. In the AI era, these will become even more central. How are these competencies being embedded in classroom practice and assessment, and not just articulated in policy documents?
Ensuring space for the arts, sport, recreation, project-based learning and entrepreneurial exploration will be critical. In an AI-driven economy, how does MOE ensure that these areas are protected and strengthened within the curriculum?
Reducing the arms race is not about lowering standards. It is about aligning our standards with the capabilities that matter most for the future.
Third, we should address concentrated demand for certain primary schools. Persistent pressure around Primary 1 registration suggests that demand remains concentrated in a number of highly sought-after schools. If we are serious about reducing competition intensity, structural supply deserves consideration alongside the messaging.
So, could MOE consider expanding the footprint and capacity of high-demand schools by establishing additional campuses or increasing the intake in more locations? In doing so, what key factors determine whether a successful school model can be replicated elsewhere?
Fourth, talent pathways must reflect long-term development, not early acceleration. If we seek to reduce excessive academic pressure, we must also ensure that competitive intensity is not simply directed to other domains.
The original intent of DSA was to recognise diverse talents beyond academics in sports, the arts and other areas of strength. That intent remains important. However, in a competitive environment, DSA may inadvertently incentivise earlier and more intensive specialisation. In some cases, this increases the risk of burn-out, injury or loss of intrinsic motivation.
Without longitudinal data on how these students progress through the DSA pathway, whether they remain engaged, transition successfully or exit early, it becomes difficult to assess both the intended and unintended outcomes of the DSA pathway. So, in this context, could MOE consider conducting longitudinal studies to evaluate whether DSA supports: (a) a sustainable national talent pipeline in the respective domains, and (b) reducing both short-term and long-term outcomes for individual students?
The Chairman: Mr Alex Yam. Kindly deliver both your cuts together.
Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Thank you, Chairman. AI is shaping the way we learn and the way we work. But it also raises deeper questions about judgement, equity and the preservation of human creativity.
Our students are already encountering AI tools in their daily lives. AI literacy must mean more than technical familiarity. It must include the ability to question outputs, detect bias, understand limitations and exercise ethical judgement. A student should know not only how to generate an answer through AI, but how to interrogate it.
In practical classroom terms, this may mean requiring students to produce an initial draft before consulting AI and assessing them on how they evaluate and refine AI suggestions. It may mean presenting students with an AI-generated essay and asking them to critique its weaknesses.
In Mathematics and Science, we might place greater weight on explaining reasoning rather than simplify and presenting a solution. In the arts, AI, of course, can generate various variations, but the creative direction must remain firmly in the hands of the student.
The principle therefore is simple. AI should be a thinking partner, not an answer engine. It should expand imagination and not standardise it. It should accelerate our ability to iterate but not eliminate intellectual struggle.
We must be careful that creativity is not stifled by convenience. The most complex processing tool ever is the human brain. It would be deeply ironic if, in building ever more powerful machines, we allowed our own capacity for deep thinking and problem solving to weaken. Some degree of cognitive effort, even friction, is necessary for growth. If AI removes that effort entirely, the learning becomes hollow.
At the same time, we must ensure that there is equitable access. AI literacy must therefore be embedded systematically and age appropriately across the education journey, with teachers supported through clear guidelines and professional development. But the conversation does not end at graduation.
AI is reshaping industries across the board. Continuous learning is becoming essential not only for engineers, programmers, accountants, designers, logistics consultants and frontline supervisors. Yet, mid-career and mature workers may find AI training inaccessible due to cost, time constraints or being unfamiliarity with digital tools.
Here, accessibility and relevance are key. Upskilling pathways must be modular and practical, integrated into mainstream continuing education rather than confined to specialist tracks. Training should be directly linked to real workplace tasks. And smaller firms that lack in-house capacity will need further support. Lower-wage workers must not be left behind as automation advances.
If digital literacy has become a baseline skill over the past two decades, AI literacy must now become a shared national competency. It should not be a niche advantage enjoyed by a small group, but a common capability that strengthens our collective resilience.
Ultimately, AI is a tool. Whether it empowers or diminishes us depends on the norms and structures we build around it. If we are intentional, we can raise a generation that masters AI without being mastered by it and a workforce that uses AI to enhance judgement rather than outsource it. In doing so, we ensure that technology amplifies what is makes us uniquely human.
Mr Ng Chee Meng (Jalan Kayu): Chairman, our young graduates are entering the workforce at a time in a disrupted age. AI is becoming more advanced, even at entry-level tasks. And throughout their careers, they will need to adapt and pivot several times, as the pace of change and skills obsolescence increases.
If our education system does not evolve, there will be a growing mismatch between graduates' skills, job expectations and experiences and evolving market needs.
Our education system, especially our IHLs, must become more agile and proactive in anticipating future skills demands, especially in this AI disrupted age. This must happen at every level and not just at our universities, but in our polytechnics and ITEs too.
In light of this, how will the Ministry be ensuring that our IHLs refresh their curriculum and pedagogy to ensure that our students are ready for an AI-disrupted job market, with better chances of securing a good job?
Mr Low Wu Yang Andre (Non-Constituency Member): Chairman, in my maiden speech at the debate on the President's Address, I said that SkillsFuture risks is becoming a supermarket of choices, plenty of choice but no clear ladder to climb towards better career outcomes. Today, I want to return to that concern and ask the Ministry to take three concrete steps.
The urgency is real. According to Randstad Workmonitor 2026 Report, global job postings requiring AI agent skills surged by over 1500% in 2025 alone. A three or four-year bachelor's degree cannot keep pace with that kind of velocity, and neither can our current continuous education ecosystem that is still struggling to get employers to recognise lifelong learning credentials at all.
Firstly, as I suggested in my maiden speech, the Careers and Skills Passport should evolve into a dynamic living credential. Right now, it functions largely as a digital filing cabinet. Former Education Minister Chan articulated a vision in July 2024 of a living ecosystem, where micro-credentials from across our IHLs stacked into formal qualifications. That vision remains aspirational. I ask the Ministry to set a concrete timeline for full-cross IHL recognition across universities, polytechnics and our ITEs so that adult learners can build towards a credible recognised qualification piece by piece with each step appropriately documented in the Careers and Skills Passport.
Secondly, cross recognition only works if there is enough worth recognising. I welcome the new AI programmes our IHLs have been launching. But the pace of market demand is out running the pace of supply. I ask the Ministry to set explicit targets for IHL micro-credential offerings in fast-moving sectors and to report progress against those targets annually so that we can hold ourselves accountable.
Thirdly, we must look beyond our shores. Singapore prides itself on being open to the world and our upskilling framework should be no different. There is a vast ecosystem online of world-class universities offering Masters level micro-credentials through various platforms. Massachusetts Institute of Technology's (MIT's) MicroMasters Programme on edX and Georgia Tech's Michael Masters in Analytics, which stacked directly towards their fully accredited and well-regarded online Master of Science and Analytics, are exactly the kind of high signals stackable credentials that carry global employer recognition.
I ask the Minister to extend SkillsFuture Credit eligibility and Career in Skills Passport Recognition to such credentials from reputable overseas universities, not to replace our IHLs but to fill gaps while our local capacity develops.
The Prime Minister has made AI a centrepiece of this year's Budget. The world not waiting, our workers are not waiting. Our continuous education, ecosystem must keep pace.
Assoc Prof Terence Ho (Nominated Member): Mr Chairman, I declare my interest as a university educator and administrator.
As I follow the recent discourse on AI and education both in Singapore and globally, I observe two seemingly polarised views on the impact of AI on education, particularly higher education and CET. One is that little will change and the other is that everything must change in the age of AI.
I see elements of truth in both views. On the one hand, AI will affect both content – what is taught – and instructional methods – how knowledge is shared and learnt. Students will need to know how to use AI tools and interpret AI output with discernment, as many Members have raised, while new technologies can enable more personalised learning experiences.
On the other hand, there is genuine concern about cognitive offloading if students rely excessively on AI. For instance, an MIT study published last year found that heavy reliance on AI tools for essay writing may lead to long-term cognitive harm as measured through brain scans. Students who repeatedly relied on AI had weakened neural connectivity, poorer memory recall and had a reduced sense of ownership over their own writing. This underscores that there is no substitute for building foundational skills in thinking and writing.
So, there is a need for clarity on what should change and what should be retained in regard to education in the AI age.
What is becoming clear is that tertiary education, in particular, needs to be revamped more quickly. When students can acquire knowledge for themselves with the help of AI tutors that are available around the clock, IHLs need to consider what value they can bring to their students and hence, how to make the best use of curriculum time.
It should no longer be about lecturers downloading information to students. Time spent in classes would be more productively used for case discussions, problem-solving and Socratic dialogue with facilitators and peers, to maximise opportunities for mutual learning, evaluation and reflection. IHLs are also uniquely positioned to help students develop interpersonal skills, make friends and build networks.
To their credit, our IHLs are already alert to the needs in this changed environment and are feeling their way forward. Various pilots are being done to revamp curriculum and update instructional methods.
I would like to know what plans the Ministry has to support IHLs in doing so and, in particular, what can be done to facilitate the evaluation of outcomes and to promote sharing of learning points and propagation of good practices more systematically across IHLs.
It is also clear that AI will significantly influence how student learning is assessed. If instructors assign take-home essays, I think it would be unrealistic to ask or expect students not to use AI tools. Trying to police unauthorised AI use could lead to contentious disputes between faculty and students in all but the most clear-cut cases.
Fortunately, there are alternatives. Where the objective is to assess independent thinking without AI assistance, instructors may use supervised assessments with restricted Internet access. For take-home assignments, a larger proportion of marks come from vivas or oral examinations to evaluate the student's thinking process, even when AI tools are used.
With different forms of assessment, there is also a need to better reflect the range of knowledge and skills that students acquire. A single course grade may not fully capture a student's competencies and skills particularly when there are both technical concepts and skills to master, as well as an evaluative or problem-solving dimension.
Take a business course for example. Students are expected to master economics, accountancy and business concepts, apply these to business decisions through case discussions and collaborate effectively in teams.
A single course grade or Grade Point Average offers limited insight into these distinct dimensions. It may therefore be useful for an academic transcript to reflect multiple components, knowledge and technical skills, evaluative and applied capabilities and interpersonal competencies. While the first component may be more objective, the latter two are arguably more important.
Internationally, examples are emerging. The University of Michigan has piloted skills transcripts for engineering students to highlight teamwork, problem-solving and technical proficiencies. The Stanford University Integrative Learning Portfolio Lab helps students create digital portfolios that capture academic, co-curricular and personal experiences beyond traditional grades. In Singapore, Temasek Polytechnic is pioneering a skills transcript for students graduating this year.
Could the Ministry elaborate on what is doing to encourage or support innovation in learning assessment, whether there is ongoing research in this area and what can be done facilitate systematic sharing of good practices and learning points across institutions?
Dr Choo Pei Ling (Chua Chu Kang): Chairman, when I speak with students and working adults, the question is rarely about the number of courses available. It is this: \"If I invest time and effort in learning, will it genuinely move me forward?\"
In Singapore, we have long believed that effort should open doors, that hard work, not background, determines opportunity. That belief is central to our social compact.
The merger of SkillsFuture Singapore and Workforce Singapore is therefore significant. Careers are now longer and less linear. Support must feel integrated across skills acquisition, job transitions and progression. A fragmented journey erodes confidence; a coherent one strengthens it. But integration alone will not secure trust. Lifelong learning must translate into real mobility, not just participation.
First, outcomes should increasingly focus on sustained progression. Beyond enrolment and initial placement, what ultimately matters are longer-term wage growth, employment stability and the quality of skills-job matching. It is not enough to move someone into a job quickly if that job does not reflect their upgraded capability. When effort visibly leads to advancement, confidence strengthens naturally.
Second, a clear framework should be set for policy decisions. A single agency simplifies the journey for the learner, jobseeker and worker. But sometimes, policy priorities diverge. For example, in resource-constrained segments, should employment-driven outcomes or longer-term career development training needs take priority? As the new agency will report to both MOE and MOM, how can decision-making gridlocks be prevented?
Third, incentives must align. Lifelong learning succeeds only when employers signal that skills are recognised in promotion, pay and job redesign. If retraining does not shift progression pathways, workers will hesitate, regardless of subsidies. Training must change trajectories, not just transcripts. In a changing economy, every Singaporean who is willing to adapt should be able to see a clear path forward. If implemented well, this reform will strengthen trust in upward mobility for the next generation.
Mr David Hoe (Jurong East-Bukit Batok): Chairman, I support MOE's continued efforts to strengthen SkillsFuture as a pillar of lifelong learning, especially as our workforce navigates rapid shifts in technology and industry demand.
As of today, we have a wide and growing menu of courses and subsidies under SkillsFuture. But for many Singaporeans, the hardest step is always the first step, knowing what course I should choose, whether this course aligns to my interests, my aptitude and also my longer-term aspirations.
Today, the reality is this: those with stronger networks will have a higher likelihood of knowing people working in emerging or high-value industries. They can talk to these people to ask about what kind of skills they should acquire, what kind of course they should take so that they can enter such industries. But the truth is those without networks or social capital, however, have to spend more time, more energy, more resources figuring out which pathways to take.
Surely, our system can do better to reduce such costs, so that decisions can be made better. In this regard, I propose complementing our existing SkillsFuture offerings with something simpler, lighter and decision-friendly. I call this SkillsFuture \"Taster Sessions\", at lower costs or no cost.
\"Taster Session\" itself gives a flavour of what industry is like or what skillsets you require. A good \"Taster Session\", however, should provide answers to basic questions, such as \"What is this course about?\", \"What are the skills required for me to do well in this industry or sector?\" Furthermore, such Taster sessions can also provide a broad roadmap, a landscape of professional pathways. What are the positions that are there in this industries, and what kind of skills I should acquire, so that I can assume responsibility in these roles.
\"Taster Sessions\" can also cover clear learning pathways. In the event that a learner is interested to deep dive, these pathways should be grouped in a way that is easily understood by individuals, grouped by job role, skills type, level of difficulty or industry type.
If we are able to do this well, individuals will have information and better understanding of the stakes involved before committing time, energy, money and even, potentially, a career change. This is especially important for emerging and specialised areas, where interest is high, but understanding is often lacking.
Whether be it frontal technologies, green capabilities or strategical domains, what we want is for every Singaporean to be able to enter this fields with eyes wide open. Chairman, providing \"Taster Sessions\" can further strengthen equity, given how those with weaker networks and lower social capital often have limited means to understand the scope of course and industries. To summarise my cut, SkillsFuture \"Taster Sessions\" can help to close the information gap and enable individuals to make better decisions, because do we not make many decisions every single day?
Miss Rachel Ong (Tanjong Pagar): Chairman, I support the Government's strong investment in AI skills for Singaporeans. Expanding the TeSA programme to help non-tech workers gain practical AI capabilities sends an important signal, that AI is no longer a niche skill, but a foundational one.
As we build these capabilities, we must ensure that inclusion keeps pace, especially for persons with disabilities, so that new divides are not created. Training providers supported under the national AI initiatives should incorporate reasonable accommodations; such as screen-reader compatible materials, captioning or sign language interpretation where needed and accessible training venues. Could the Minister clarify what requirements are in place to ensure such accommodations are consistently provided?
Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong (West Coast-Jurong West): Mr Chairman, Singapore's students ranked first globally for Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). That is a genuine achievement and the result of deliberate, sustained policy work over decades. The question is not whether we have done well. We have. The question is whether we are developing the full range of human capacity for the future economy.
The World Economic Forum's Future of Jobs Report 2025 identifies the fastest-growing skill categories for the coming decade. They span across two domains, analytical reasoning and creative thinking on the cognitive side, empathy, social influence and self-awareness on the affective side. Both are identified as co-equal drivers of the future workforce value.
McKinsey Global Institute's automation research finds that up to 30% of work activities globally could be displaced by current technologies, with activities least susceptible to displacement being those requiring social and emotional intelligence, complex negotiation, empathetic judgment and creative collaboration.
Our current system has invested heavily in the cognitive mode, that is analytical, convergent and precisely measurable. Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences framework identifies that at least eight distinct cognitive systems – linguistics, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, kinaesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal and naturalist. A system that assesses primarily through linguistic and logical-mathematical channels is measuring only a subset of human potential, not its full range. We need more cognitive and affective diversity.
The affective dimension carries equal weight. Researchers Mayer, Salovey and Caruso, established that emotional intelligence, comprising of self-awareness, self-regulation, empathy and relational skill, can be measured and developed. Their model for emotional quotient (EQ) showed that performance and leadership outcomes are comparable to, and in some domains exceed, those of cognitive intelligence quotient (IQ).
This is what the Neuroscience establishes. Research by Mary Helen Immordino-Yang and Antonio Damasio demonstrated that emotion and cognition are neurologically integrated. The prefrontal cortex, responsible for executive function and higher-order reasoning does not operate independently of the limbic system. What was their central finding? It is biologically impossible to build memories, engage complex thoughts or make meaningful decisions without emotion. Affective disengagement impairs the cognitive performance even when the analytical capacity is intact.
This matters for Singapore specifically. The Institute of Mental Health's National Study on Mental Health found that one in three young Singaporeans, aged 15 to 35, had experienced a mental disorder in their lifetime. PISA data shows Singaporean students report among the highest levels of test anxiety of any participating country, with 86% of students reporting that they worry about poor grades.
This is significantly above the OECD average of 66%. Research establishes that it actively constrains cognitive flexibility and creative risk-taking. Researcher Barker and colleagues examined the daily activity logs of 70 six-year-old children against standardised measures of executive function. Their finding was direct, the more time children spent in less-structured, self-directed activities, the stronger their executive function scores are.
Structured activities showed the inverse relationship. Executive function, goal pursuit and cognitive flexibility is precisely what the AI-era economy will value. Executive function develops through the experience of self-direction.
The synthesis is straightforward. Developing the full cognitive and affective spectrum is not supplementary to academic rigour. It is the condition under which academic rigour produces its maximum return. We need more cognitive and affective diversity.
I suggest three Interventions for consideration. The first is \"White Space Fridays\". Two protected hours per week for student-led, self-directed exploration. Students register a project or hobby each semester, and schools provide the infrastructure, such as makerspaces and music rooms. Teachers provide the resources, not direction. No rubrics, no grades required.
The rationale draws from the research at the Stanford Center on Adolescence, found that young people who develop personal purpose through self-directed exploration demonstrate greater academic motivation, stronger mental health outcomes and more robust career trajectories than those whose goals are externally assigned.
The second suggestion is Student Policy Committees. The difference between consultation and co-governance is consequential. In consultation, views are heard. In co-governance, the participant is present for trade-offs, constraints and decisions where competing priorities cannot all be satisfied. That particular experience is where affective intelligence develops in practice.
Researchers Zeldin, Camino and Mook examined youth-adult governance partnerships across multiple institutional settings and established that genuine partnerships, involving real decision-making authority, produce durable improvements in youth self-efficacy, empathy and civic belonging. The effect was significantly stronger in conditions of genuine co-governance than in consultative arrangements.
The proposal to form Student Policy Committees, with school leaders being the facilitator and advisors to the committee. This will provide genuine standing in discussions on student welfare, facility use and sustainability goals. Students are briefed on the constraints, the budget, the logistics and their input carries formal weight. Rotation between different groups of students, distributes the developmental benefit broadly rather than concentrating it among a narrow student cohort.
The third is a National Discovery Endowment. Researcher Erik Erikson, in \"Identity, Youth and Crisis\", identified the age 15 to 25 as the critical psychosocial window for identity formation. Subsequent neuroscientific research also confirms that adolescence represents a period of heightened neuroplasticity, specifically in areas in governing self-concept, risk evaluation and social cognition. These are the baselines of identity development.
We should do more to invest before the age of 25. After this window, neuroplasticity would have largely closed for the most consequential function. The Discovery Endowment Credits will give for Singaporeans aged 15 to 25 more opportunities to discover themselves, a sense of awareness, self-management and develop maturity that is essential for long-term development. These credits can be used for non-academic self-directed exploration, regional internships, acquire niche skills, independent project materials, or even get social enterprise grants.
A tiered credit structure can be considered to help disadvantaged households address the documented reality where exploratory experiences are distributed unequally across income brackets. In the long term, this will potentially reduce the fiscal drag caused by mid-career burnout and career mismatch and its effects on absenteeism, healthcare utilisation and loss in productivity.
These three interventions share a single logic. Singapore's next phase of development requires citizens who can operate across the full cognitive and affective spectrum, who can think divergently as well as convergently, lead with empathy as well as analyse and navigate uncertainty with both intellectual rigour and emotional resilience.
I will end with this. In 1959, the British physicist and novelist CP Snow delivered a lecture at Cambridge, which was later published as \"The Two Cultures\". His observation was simple. That intellectual life had split into two mutually uncomprehending groups: the scientists and the humanists, who had largely stopped understanding or respecting what the other did. Between them sat a gulf of mutual contempt that was quietly crippling society's capacity to solve its most serious national problems.
What Snow identified at the civilisation level, we can observe in our daily classrooms, boardrooms, teams, community and everyday life today. The analytically formidable student who cannot read a room and the relationally gifted student whom our assessment architecture cannot see. Two intelligences sitting side by side, but neither recognising the other as intelligence at all. They will naturally yield to the consensus of their group and disregard the richer connective and effective diversity of others.
Stone's warning was that societies which allow this bifurcation to harden do not merely lose cultural richness. They lose problem solving capacity and capability. The challenges that matter most requires both cognitive and effective domains in genuine integration. That is true in 1959, it is truer today. We must continue to sharpen ourselves, respect capabilities of our connective and affective diversity, and make better decisions for Singapore and Singaporeans.
Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Chairman, as Deputy Chairperson of the Education GPC, my colleagues and I remain fully committed to ensuring Singaporeans have access to education at every stage of life, including pathways beyond the conventional routes we have long accepted.
As our nation intensifies efforts in AI education and promotes lifelong learning, we must ensure the right infrastructure supports every keen learner, regardless of their starting point. This is about building futures, not just acquiring knowledge.
From feedback in my constituency in Woodgrove, during every ITE and Polytechnic application period, many qualified residents are disappointed when their preferred courses are oversubscribed, even when their results actually meet the cut-off. Can the Ministry share the current occupancy or utilisation rates for our ITEs, polytechnics, as well as their part-time courses? What plans exist to increase openings for working adults balancing careers and family as well? I urge a comprehensive review of capacity to ensure no qualified student is left on the sidelines.
As one of the Members of Parliament for Marsiling-Yew Tee Group Representation Constituency (GRC), I have previously raised in this House the proposal for a new ITE in the North. This could double as a dedicated lifelong training centre to serve the growing population in the region. It could partner closely with Republic Polytechnic for a seamless \"through-train\" programme, allowing smooth progression from foundational to advanced skills. It could also collaborate with corporates in the nearby JTC industrial areas, enabling learners to apply skills directly on the job, secure employment upon graduation, or return easily for upskilling. Such a facility would enhance access to practical, skills-based education, bridge gaps, and foster a stronger culture of continuous growth.
Infrastructure alone is insufficient. We need holistic programmes to reach those who might otherwise fall through the cracks. I therefore call for deeper collaboration with initiatives such as the YMCA's Vocational and Soft Skills Programme, which equips out-of-school youth and youths-at-risk with job competencies and vocational skills to rebuild their confidence. Many of those young children feel lost due to negative peer influences or challenging family backgrounds. Normalising and expanding such programmes align closely with the Prime Minister's vision: every Singaporean, regardless of starting point, deserves a fair chance to pursue their aspirations and realise their full potential.
To make these pathways truly inclusive, education financing must keep pace. I urge for a review and broadening of the Central Provident Fund Education Loan Scheme and Tuition Fee Loan to cover a wider range of courses – vocational trades, the arts and innovative fields like AI and sustainability. More banks should also offer similar support. This is an investment in our people's talents, ensuring no dream is deferred due to financial barriers. In Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] To support the implementation of the SkillsFuture initiative, the People's Association (PA) has been offering SkillsFuture@PA courses at various Community Clubs (CCs) since 2016. This programme has been in place for nearly 10 years now. I would like to ask: has the number of courses offered, as well as the number of participating CCs, been gradually increasing? Which age group makes up the majority of participants?
To encourage more Singaporeans to utilise their SkillsFuture training credits, I hope that SkillsFuture@PA programme can be further expanded. In addition to CCs, it could also extend to running courses at the Residents' Network Centres. This would provide greater convenience and companionship for seniors and those with mobility issues, motivating them to sign up and participate.
(In English): Chairman, educating Singaporeans develops our only natural resource – our people. Broadening education paths is not a luxury. It is essential for Singapore's resilient future. By expanding capacity, building targeted facilities, partnering with industries and community programmes, and reforming finances, we can make lifelong learning the norm, not the exception. Let us commit to this today, for the sake of our youths, our workers, our nation.
Dr Hamid Razak (West Coast-Jurong West): Mr Chairman, Sir, Singapore has made strong progress in reshaping how we view skills, applied learning and multiple pathways to success. The ITE today is a launchpad for many young Singaporeans to build meaningful careers. The next phase, however, is not only access but progression across a lifetime. If lifelong learning is to work, progression must be legible. I think of one Singaporean I know, Mr Abu Bakar Siddiq, who started out in the Normal (Academic) stream, went on to ITE, polytechnic to pursue engineering, and then went to work, got sponsored for his degree and has now completed his masters. His story shows that your starting point does not determine the finishing line and that progress must be open.
Mr Chairman, Sir, the Work-Study Diploma is a strong model for the future of our learning. As we strengthen this pathway, I have three questions for the Minister. First, can the Minister share how MOE will make ITE progression routes to the Work-Study Diploma and beyond more visible to students and parents, including pathway maps by sector and stackable credentials with clear milestones and entry criteria?
Second, can the Minister update how MOE will give greater formal weight to workplace proven competencies with assessments that are rigorous and recognised across employers?
Third, will the Minister consider piloting a structured conditional university pathway for top performing ITE and work study learners anchored on sustained workplace achievement and continued upgrading without implying that university is the only outcome?
Mr Chairman, Sir, a future ready education system is not one that sorts students early, but one that keeps doors open throughout life. If every pathway can lead forward, more Singaporeans will keep going further.
Assoc Prof Terence Ho: I declare my interest as the senior executive of an educational institute that trains and certifies adult educators for SkillsFuture courses.
The lifelong learning ecosystem in Singapore has transformed over the past 11 years since the launch of the SkillsFuture movement. The efforts of SkillsFuture Singapore and its partners have made training and reskilling affordable, accessible and of high quality, catering to the diverse needs of learners.
Adult educators are critical to the quality of CET, just as our school teachers ensure the quality of education in our schools. At the Budget debate last year, I recall the hon Member Mr Xie Yao Quan spoke about the importance of the professional development and recognition of adult educators. From April this year, adult educators who teach SkillsFuture-funded courses must be on the National Adult Educator Registry and renew their registration every two years by clocking minimum practice hours as well as taking up continuing professional development. This public registry will support the professional development of adult educators and boost confidence in our CET system.
Beyond setting minimum standards, we must also encourage and recognise excellence within the adult educator profession. The Institute for Adult Learning, where I am from, will be inducting more Adult Education Fellows, recognising them as leading educators in their respective fields who can inspire other adult educators and share their expertise with the professional community.
I believe we can do more. Just as the President’s Award for Teachers recognises outstanding teachers who inspire their students and peers through innovative teaching methods and a commitment to lifelong learning, would the Ministry consider a President’s Award for Adult Educators as well? This would put adult educators, as the custodians of lifelong learning, on par with the teaching profession in terms of recognition.
In this era of rapidly changing job and skills requirements, adult educators play a key role in motivating and inspiring adult learners to keep learning and acquiring new skills. Adult educators need to innovate in their teaching and facilitation methods, based on the latest research in adult learning, and using AI and new digital tools where appropriate. They have to be exemplars of adult learning themselves. I believe that as we rebalance our focus between pre-employment training and CET, it is timely to strengthen our recognition of adult educators.
The Chairman: Mr David Hoe. You can take your two cuts together, please.
Mr David Hoe (Jurong East-Bukit Batok): Thank you. Chairman, I want to speak about affiliation and the balance that MOE must strike between school identity, diverse learning needs and fairness. The mechanism of school affiliation and parents' alumni affiliation has been long part of our education landscape. They help to sustain school ethos, community, and also tradition. Many alumni continue to contribute meaningfully back to schools and this spirit should be preserved.
But in today's context, MOE should also assess whether affiliation now might have resulted in unintended consequences. Does it confer disproportionate advantage to some, weakened perception of fairness, meritocracy and social mixing? One practical issue is how large cut-off points gap linked to affiliation can translate into different academic readiness in a classroom, and this makes targeted teaching harder and increase preparation burden on teachers.
Let me illustrate this disparity. The cut-off point between an affiliated student and a non-affiliated Primary 6 can be very large. In my research, I found that for one popular school in 2025, non-affiliated cut-off point, the student from non-affiliated school was 10, and affiliated cut-off point is 20. A 10-point difference, not a 10-mark difference.
This is not an isolated case, because several schools have similar wide affiliation related cut-off points gaps. This matters, because in our current AL system, some bands cover a wide range of marks. For example, AL 6 spans between 45 marks and 64 marks, and AL 5, 65 to 74 marks. So, a one point cut-off point difference can represent a large spread in terms of academic readiness, what more a 10-point gap? This can significantly widen the range of learners' profile in the same subject classroom. This will in turn cause increased differentiation demands and make classroom and curriculum planning more complex, even as we move to have implemented our full subject-based banding (FSBB). While FSBB helps with subject level grouping, it cannot remove the wide difference in readiness within a subject class.
A second issue is what affiliation incentives to upstream. See, large affiliation advantages can fuel unhealthy primary school chasing earlier. A possible unintended consequence is families make primary school choice not really based on values, culture or programmes, but because they are trying to secure an easier affiliated school pathway for a good secondary school later. Over time, this can amplify inequalities, because the ability to move house, arrange childcare, mobilise alumni connection is not evenly distributed among the population. So, I would encourage MOE to consider whether the current school affiliation mechanism for entry to secondary school needs to be reviewed.
Well, I have some suggestions in this regard. Perhaps MOE can consider either capping the maximum difference between affiliated and non-affiliated cut-off points to two to three points, together with a review with the mark range within each of the AL bands to accurately reflect students' readiness, or maybe to remove affiliation cut-off points completely.
To be clear, the goal here is not to abolish school identity, but to ensure that identity does not come at a cost of public confidence in fairness or unintentionally weakening social mixing. This links to the Primary 1 admission as well, especially under Phase 2A, which gives priority to parents who are alumni of the school. MOE has to balance legitimate community ties with the principle that schools should remain inclusive.
To remain inclusive, I wonder could MOE consider more protected spaces for non-alumni students in oversubscribed schools so that primary school choice is not driven by structural advantage from networks or resources.
Chairman, I appreciate MOE's effort to broaden pathways and enable our students to make better career choices, such as having educational career counsellors in our schools. This is important because it helps our students and also our young adults to decide what to pursue.
However, I think more can be done with regard to this, so that we can see large and more meaningful change, especially for those who have fewer networks.
This cut is with regard to internship, externship, learning journeys and structured career exposure.
Today, many of these opportunities exist, but access is uneven. For instance, a better resourced school, especially our independent secondary schools, often have stronger alumni networks, more established industry relationships, greater capacity to organise their visits, talks or attachment.
In a recent Clementi community run, I spoke to a student who shared with me that his school very soon, about in one week's time, they will have a sabbatical week for secondary four cohort. These students can choose from a range of different programmes to gain exposure beyond classroom. And he also shared with me his senior, Year Five, previously, just did an internship during school breaks.
You see, as a former educator, I understand his worldview, but I also know this is not true for most of our secondary schools in Singapore. For students from less resourced or disadvantaged background, such opportunities to discover their interest matters even more, because if you come from a family without strong professional networks, you cannot easily borrow career insights from your parents or friends or find informal internships through social connections, because what you can see is what you can imagine and what you can imagine shapes what you dare to pursue.
So, structured exposure if done well, becomes an equaliser, because it substitutes for who you know and it helps students to build confidence, aspirations and a clearer sense of fit. So, I urge MOE to consider these three moves.
First, to expand and better standardise access to career exposure across schools. This includes internship, externship, where feasible, but also shorter and more scalable formats, such as our learning journeys, workplace visits, shadowing days and structured career day with real job content. The aim is to ensure the experiences do not sit within some schools, but they are made available throughout our system, especially our non-IP schools and less resourced educational institution.
Second, MOE should also consider a better structuring these experiences in line with our priority sectors or industry, where Singapore is trying to build our capabilities. We can work with industry partners and school leaders to curate such experiences. Such experiences should not be one off but should be a sustained exposure that helps students to understand what the nature of the work is like, what kind of skills is required, what pathways exist.
Third, for such programmes, priority should be given to those who will gain the most. If we believe in equity, we must design a first access for students who have fewer resources or come from disadvantaged background. We should remove practical barriers in this regard. For example, it should be simpler sign-up, transportation support and if there is a need, for a small allowance, so that participation does not depend on the student's financial or family situation. And beyond SkillsFuture course, we should also scale this at adults as well for short learning journeys for adults. This will give our adults a more realistic view.
Dr Charlene Chen (Tampines): Chairman, resilience should not depend on which school a child attends. While initiatives exist, implementation varies. In some schools, resilience skills, peer systems and early detection are embedded. In others, they depend heavily on local bandwidth and priorities. If resilience is foundational, certain elements must be guaranteed nationally. High-performing systems already do this.
Finland embeds well-being as a formal objective in its national curriculum. Denmark mandates a weekly class, Klassens Tid, dedicated to emotional dialogue and conflict resolution. Japan's Tokkatsu, part of its national curriculum, systematically develops social responsibility and emotional regulation. These are not optional add-ons, but structured expectations.
I therefore propose a National School Mental Well-Being Charter. The principle is clear: centralise standards and accountability, decentralise delivery and innovation.
First, a national baseline for resilience education: a minimum annual allocation within Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) for mental health literacy and coping skills; defined developmental competencies at key stages; central vetting of external providers.
Second, a standardised well-being framework. Denmark uses national digital well-being audits to systematically track student mood and welfare trends. Singapore can adopt a nationally validated annual instrument measuring belonging, coping confidence and psychological safety, used for internal improvement, not public ranking.
Third, clear support benchmarks. Finland's three-tiered support model ensures timely intervention for students who need more help. Our Charter should define timelines for counsellor access, minimum training and supervision standards for peer supporters, structured referral pathways.
Accreditation should be tiered and developmental, recognising capability-building rather than compliance. This is feasible. CCE exists. Surveys exist. Peer systems exist. Counsellors are deployed.
The Charter aligns these under clear national guardrails. International evidence shows resilience improves when it is embedded, measured and systematised. Without baseline guarantees, outcomes remain uneven. With structured standards, every student receives consistent support regardless of school.
Ms Elysa Chen: Sir, in my Budget debate, I spoke about the power of the arts in promoting mental well-being. The Minister has outlined efforts to support disadvantaged students, nurture human-centric qualities in the age of AI and refresh the CCE curriculum. The arts are a natural complement.
In 2023, the Singapore Symphony Orchestra brought 200 students to a concert. Half had never attended one; a third lived in rental or smaller flats. Students reported a 13% improvement in well-being, a 17% rise in positive emotions and a 41% drop in negative emotions and a stronger social connection, all from a single concert!
If one shared arts experience can do this, imagine what sustained engagement could achieve for bullying prevention, socio-emotional development and social mixing. The arts also engage kinesthetic learners, foster creativity and strengthen problem-solving. This is not about adding to teachers' burdens but equipping them with trained partners.
I saw this firsthand at a Playback Theatre session by the Singapore Drama Educators Association, where audience members share real experiences of bullying and trained facilitators play them back through improvised performance. The practitioners proposed this as an avenue to address bullying by building empathy and supporting restorative approaches. They stand ready to partner schools.
I would like to ask the Minister: will MOE commission a study on how the arts affect student mental well-being? Second, will MOE partner arts practitioners to address bullying and build socio-emotional competencies in schools?
As Singaporean artist Tan Swie Hian said, \"Art is not just a reflection of life; it is a catalyst for change\". Our children are works of art themselves who can be powerful catalysts of change. By bringing the arts into education, we can help our students grow not just academically, but as empathetic, resilient and creative individuals.
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng: Sir, on supporting students with Special Educational Needs (SEN) in our mainstream schools and in special education (SPED) schools, we have made real progress in the space. Big thanks to MOE, partner disability agencies and staff.
But the numbers being diagnosed and the demands are increasing and our support models must grow stronger.
First, on mainstream schools, from access to consistent quality. Over the past decade, MOE has strengthened in-school capabilities. SEN officers have increased from about 450 in 2017 to about 750 by 2024. Primary schools now run structured programmes, such as School-based Dyslexia Remediation, Circle of Friends peer support, and the TRANsition Support for InTegration (TRANSIT) initiative. These are serious investments. But two areas need attention in the mainstream schools setting.
First, inclusion quality remains uneven. Parents still report differences in early identification, teacher confidence and consistency of support across schools. We need a clearer national tiered framework that defines what every classroom teacher must be able to do, what school-based specialists provide and what requires multi-disciplinary intervention including for mental wellness. Support should not depend on which school a child happens to enter.
Second, life skills must be intentionally taught. For many SEN students in mainstream settings, academic access alone is not enough. Executive functioning, self-advocacy, emotional regulation, work habits and digital responsibility and so on must be systematically embedded, not treated as optional add-ons. These are foundational for lifelong learning and employability. Not including them bears negative consequences.
Next on special schools, expanding the capacity and reimagining their purpose. On the SPED side, much more support had been put in. Capacity will increase from 8,300 in 2024, to 10,000 places by 2030. Demand and complexity continue to rise.
First, manpower is the tightest bottleneck. If we build new schools without enlarging the workforce, we create a tug-of-war. SPED competes with mainstream. Mainstream competes with SPED. Both compete with the private sector.
We need a deliberate manpower strategy: expand sponsored training pipelines for SPED educators and allied professionals, scale structured mid-career conversion pathways, allow for foreign manpower to supplement the workforce, deploy regional multidisciplinary teams serving classes of schools, pace spread staff competitively, educators, speech pathologies, therapies and coaches. Retention is capacity.
Second, we must address the post-SPED cliff. Beyond expansion, we must ask: what should a SPED school of the future look like? It should adopt a lifelong learning model integrating academic foundations with work readiness and vocational exposure, life skills for independent and dignified living, social-emotional growth and community participation and AI tools that actively address the rapidly changing living and working landscape.
SPED schools must be launchpads for adulthood, not endpoints. No young person should thrive for years in our SPED schools to face then a drop into uncertainty. That cliff is for ours to level.
Prof Kenneth Poon (Nominated Member): Mr Chairman, I would like to state my interest in this matter as a psychologist, special educator and also an academic with practice experience and research interest in the needs of students with SEN.
It was reported in the 2024 Disability Trends Report that there were, as of 2023, about 36,000 students with SEN in Singapore schools. Of these, about 80% or close to 29,000 attend mainstream schools, which represents a rise from the 27,000 in 2022. I would like to focus, today, on this group of students.
Like the hon Member Ms Denise Phua, I would like to applaud the Ministry's significant investments, over the past decade, in differentiated provision of support across the education system. This has enabled more students with SEN to access educational pathways suited to their profiles of needs.
Mainstream schools now provide students with SEN access to the national curriculum as well as with support in the form of teachers trained in SEN, SEN Officers, and from the multi-tiered system of support. Within this context, students with SEN not only benefit from the challenge from access to the national curriculum but they also have the opportunity to learn alongside their peers.
Students with SEN thrive in mainstream environments when necessary supports are in place. However, there are some students with SEN who are able to engage with aspects of the national curriculum, but whose consistent participation in classroom instruction depends on supports that are not always available within the school environment. These may take the form of additional services targeting areas like learning, executive functions social skills, as well as emotional and behavioral regulation.
When such support is not consistently available, the students' ability to participate in classroom instruction and progress within the national curriculum may become affected. This may impact, in the short term, engagement, learning and social interaction of such students. But it may also affect motivation and identity over time as well as potentially longer-term consequences on employability and participation within society.
Access to such supports may depend on availability, cost and coordination across settings, which can be within hospitals, social service agencies or private providers. In such circumstances, the responsibility for sustaining access to learning may shift from institutional arrangements within schools to the capacity of individual families to coordinate supports across educational, healthcare and social service settings.
I had highlighted during my earlier Budget speech about the contribution of meaningful participation and having a voice in decision-making within a cohesive society. I would hence like to ask the Minister if the Government could share how classroom instruction is adapted for students who need supports that may not be consistently available within mainstream schools and how students with SEN and their families are involved in shaping the type of supports they receive in mainstream schools.
Sir, the question I seek to raise today is not whether we should invest in such provision of support for students with SEN. I believe we already have. It is about how continuity of meaningful participation in mainstream schools is sustained for students with SEN with support needs that are not consistently available within the school environment.
I look forward to the Minister's clarification on this matter.
Dr Charlene Chen: Chairman, as inclusion deepens in our mainstream schools, we must ensure that support arrives early enough and scales quickly enough to ease pressure in the classroom.
In Primary 1, teachers are not only teaching literacy and numeracy. They are helping children learn how to sit still, sustain attention, regulate impulses and transition between tasks. When several students in one class struggle with these foundational skills, the teacher spends much of the lesson managing behaviour. Instructional time shrinks. Strain builds for teachers and for students.
MOE already conducts systematic screening for literacy and numeracy at Primary 1 and SEN officers support teachers in identifying social-behavioural difficulties. Behavioural identification, however, is largely supported through observation and monitoring over time.
I propose that we strengthen this process by incorporating structured executive-function indicators into the existing Primary 1 screening framework. A short, cohort-wide baseline around 30 to 45 minutes could provide objective data on learning readiness skills such as attention regulation, working memory and impulse control.
This is not diagnostic. It does not label children. It strengthens early planning. It allows schools to identify early on which cohorts may require heavier classroom support before strain accumulates. Importantly, this information could be linked to calibrated manpower deployment.
Where a Primary 1 cohort shows higher-than-usual support needs, temporary para-educator or co-teaching support could be deployed earlier rather than after prolonged escalation. And where support density within a class is particularly high, flexibility in class composition or size should be considered. There is no single ideal class number. What matters is whether the structure of the class matches the needs within it.
When early intervention is effective, behavioural and learning gaps often narrow. Support intensity reduces as students mature and manpower can then be redeployed to incoming cohorts. In this way, we move from reactive escalation to early calibration. This approach lightens teacher workload, reduces cumulative strain across levels and ensures that children receive timely support during their most formative years.
If we detect early and deploy early, we support our teachers, strengthen student outcomes and give parents confidence that inclusion remains both compassionate and workable.
Ms Lee Hui Ying: Sir, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Bilingualism is central to Singapore's identity, yet gaps remain. Some students struggle with both English and their mother tongue and interest in mother tongue languages is waning.
I speak from personal experience as a former Language Elective Programme (Chinese) student. I am proud to enjoy my mother yongue. Our identity as bilingual Singaporeans is special. Bilingualism should not be a policy, it should be a skill students embrace with confidence and pride.
Yet mastering two languages is no easy feat. Too often, it is seen as an exam to pass and a source of stress rather than a living language. Has our current policy kept pace? How can we reignite interest? I ask whether MOE will provide greater support for parents to immerse young children at home and leverage digital platforms to make learning engaging. We need targeted support for weaker learners, stronger teacher training and curricula that make languages relevant and engaging.
Assessments should reward practical use, not just exam results. Only then can bilingualism become a lifelong skill, empowering our students and sustaining our cultural heritage.
Dr Hamid Razak: Mr Chairman, Sir, bilingualism today cannot be sustained by schools alone. Languages weaken not when they are difficult to learn, but when they are no longer lived outside the classroom. If we want mother tongue proficiency to be sustained, we must continually enrich the language environment so that children here use and enjoy the language in everyday settings. This is why the next phase of bilingualism must be a whole-of-community effort.
First, we can consider catalytic micro grants for community-led bilingual initiatives – small, simple and outcome-focused – to support storytelling sessions, reading circles, drama and inter-generational activities.
Second, we should support regular community language spaces, for example, in libraries, community clubs or neighbourhood nodes, so that language use becomes a routine, not just an occasional festival.
Third, let us strengthen parent enablement with simple toolkits and nudges that help families use mother tongue at home in practical ways, at meals, during routines and in shared activities. Because bilingualism is not only taught in schools, it is sustained in communities.
Mr Chairman, Sir, a cut on bilingualism will not be complete without me speaking in my mother tongue. In Tamil, please.
(In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Why do we refer to mother tongue as mother tongue? When we mention \"mother\", what we recall are love, support and nurturing. These beautiful feelings have to be refreshed in our hearts as we speak in our mother tongue. Therefore, we cannot teach mother tongue in schools alone. This is a joint community effort. Hence, let us come together and expound the motherliness of our mother tongue. Long live, mother tongues.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply Reporting Progress","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Chairman: Minister Desmond Lee, would you like to move that progress be reported?
The Minister for Education (Mr Desmond Lee): Chairman, may I seek your consent to move that progress be reported and leave be asked to sit again?
The Chairman: I give my consent.
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That progress be reported and leave be asked to sit again.\" – [Mr Desmond Lee]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Desmond Lee.
Mr Desmond Lee: Deputy Speaker, I report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 2026/2027 and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.
Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it. Deputy Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad]. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 8.10 pm.
8 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether any motorists had their driving licences suspended as a consequence of the 1,523 speeding tickets that were erroneously issued between 30 October and 8 December 2025; and (b) if so, how will the Government make restitution for the wrongful loss of driving privileges suffered by any such motorists.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Member may wish to refer to the written reply in response to Parliamentary Question No 7 delivered on 25 February 2026. [Please refer to \"License Suspensions due to Erroneously Issued Speeding Tickets and Recourse Available for Affected Vocational Drivers\", Official Report, 25 February 2026, Vol 96, Issue 19, Written Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adequacy of Existing Laws to Punish Egregious Road Behaviour That Result in Death","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"9 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Government has studied the adequacy of existing laws to punish egregious road behaviour resulting in death; (b) whether the Government will consider introducing a specific offence of vehicular homicide carrying penalties on par with culpable homicide; and (c) if not, why current penalties are considered proportionate for the most serious cases.
Mr K Shanmugam: Today, when a person does an act which causes a death, there are provisions in the Penal Code to charge such a person for murder or culpable homicide. This will include deaths caused through the use of a vehicle. These offences are in addition to the driving offences in the Road Traffic Act.
The charge brought against an offender will depend on various factors, in particular, the offender's state of mind when committing the offence. If the offender intended to cause a person's death using a vehicle, he may be charged for murder under s 300(a) of the Penal Code, which carries the mandatory death penalty. If the offender knew that his driving was so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or bodily injury that is likely to cause death, he may be liable for murder under s 300(d) of the Penal Code, which carries the discretionary death penalty.
Where the offender's state of mind does not meet these thresholds, but the offender knew that his or her driving was likely to cause death, the offender may still be liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under s 304(b) of the Penal Code. This is punishable with imprisonment of up to 15 years or with a fine or with caning, or with a combination of such punishments.
For example, in October 2025, charges of culpable homicide were brought in relation to two fatal traffic accidents. These cases are currently before the Courts.
Most offenders who cause death while driving are prosecuted under the Road Traffic Act, as these offenders usually do not have the requisite state of mind for a charge of murder or culpable homicide to be brought against them.
It is not clear from the Member's question if he is suggesting that all such cases should be prosecuted as murder or culpable homicide. This will be a substantial change in the law, which could lead to people being charged for murder, and face the death penalty, or culpable homicide, even if they did not intend to cause death and did not know that death would likely be caused.
Let me also assure Members. The Ministry of Home Affairs has been increasing penalties and tightening the rules, in respect of traffic accidents. And the Ministry has also been actively considering the possibility of legislating some additional offences where: (a) the offender drives a motor vehicle on a road in such a manner that endangers another person's life or personal safety; (b) the offender did so with the purpose of endangering another person's life or personal safety; and (c) the offender's driving caused death or grievous hurt to another person.
However, such offenders will not face the death penalty.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Growth in Real Wages of Lowest 20th Percentile of Workers Compared with Increase in Living Costs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"10 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Minister for Manpower what the Ministry's assessment of how real wage growth for the lowest 20th percentile of local workers compares with the increase in essential living costs over the past three years.
Dr Tan See Leng: From 2022 to 2025, nominal wage of full-time employed residents at the 20th percentile rose by 13.9% cumulatively. Over the same period, headline inflation was 8.3% and core inflation, which excludes accommodation and private transport, was 7.8%. After adjusting for headline inflation, lower-wage workers at the 20th percentile experienced real wage growth of 5.2% cumulatively from 2022 to 2025.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures, Penalties and Enforcement Contained in Upcoming Regulations of Sale of Blind Boxes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"11 Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs in view of regulations that will be introduced for the sale of blind boxes to address gambling-related risks (a) what specific measures will be implemented to prevent compulsive behaviour among minors, arising from blind box purchases; (b) how will enforcement be conducted to ensure that retailers comply with the new rules; and (c) what penalties will apply for non-compliance.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Ministry of Home Affairs will share the specifics of the blind box regulations when we are ready, around mid-2026. These regulations aim to mitigate the gambling inducement risk of blind boxes, including the potential of a product to induce consumers to spend excessively. Additional measures, such as age-based restrictions and probability disclosure, will be considered subsequently as we need more time to study them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Time Taken for Adult Caregivers to Return to Workforce After Discharging Caregiving Duties","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"12 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry has data on the length of time taken for adult caregivers to return to the workforce after discharging their caregiving responsibilities; (b) if so, what are the mean and median time taken in 2025.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower does not have data on the length of time taken for adult caregivers to return to the workforce after discharging their caregiving responsibilities. Caregiving is often part of ongoing family arrangements and may change over time as needs evolve. Some individuals may also return to work while caregiving continues, which makes it difficult to determine when caregiving has fully ended.
Available data show that around one in four residents who were outside the labour force primarily due to caregiving responsibilities returned to work within two years. Among those who did not return, around eight in 10 had no intention to seek employment.
We will continue monitoring labour force participation and return patterns among caregivers and make adjustments where appropriate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Threat Assessment of Coordinated Deepfake or Synthetic Media Campaigns that Target Singapore Given Advances in GenAI","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"13 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (i) whether the Government assesses that advances in generative AI have materially increased the risk of coordinated deepfake or synthetic media campaigns targeting Singapore; and (ii) how Singapore's national detection and response capabilities are being strengthened to mitigate such risks.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Government shares the Member's concern that generative AI can be exploited by bad actors to spread falsehoods, conduct hostile information operations and manipulate public opinion through convincing deepfakes produced at scale.
We have introduced safeguards to moderate these risks. The Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act allows the Government to correct AI-generated falsehoods against the public interest and counteract coordinated inauthentic behaviour. Under the Broadcasting Act, the Infocomm Media Development Authority can direct online communication services to disable Singapore users' access to egregious content, including content that is AI-generated. Our elections laws prohibit deepfakes that misrepresent election candidates. The Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act also provides the Government with powers to deal with AI-generated online content or accounts that are part of a hostile information campaign, such as by preventing such content from being viewed in Singapore.
We employ a variety of detection tools and techniques, from commercial products to in-house technology, and continuously review our capabilities to detect and respond to malicious AI-generated content. We also set up the Centre for Advanced Technologies in Online Safety to strengthen Singapore's technological capabilities to combat online harms and threats.
These efforts are extensive but not enough. We also need our citizens to be vigilant and discerning. This is why we continue with public education initiatives, such as through the National Library Board's S.U.R.E. (Source, Understand, Research, Evaluate) programme. Ahead of the 2025 General Elections, the Ministry of Home Affairs also launched a public education campaign that highlighted how deepfake videos and AI-generated posts had been used in influence operations targeting other countries.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proportion of SEN Students in Mainstream Schools and Ensuring Adequate Training for Teachers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"14 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the current proportion of students with special educational needs enrolled in mainstream schools; and (b) how does the Ministry ensure that teachers are adequately equipped to support these students while also meeting the learning needs of the broader student population.
Mr Desmond Lee: About 7% of the student population in mainstream schools have reported special educational needs (SEN). This proportion has remained stable over the past three years.
Our schools adopt a whole-school approach to support teaching and learning of all students, including those with SEN. This ecosystem of support comprises school leaders, key personnel overseeing the Case Management Team, Teachers trained in Special Needs (TSNs), subject teachers and SEN Officers.
For example, while all teachers have the basic knowledge and strategies to teach classrooms with diverse student needs, each school has about five to 10 TSNs with deeper expertise who are able to share best practices with other teachers to support students with more complex needs. There is also ongoing professional learning for teachers to build up confidence and strengthen their skills to support students with SEN.
Furthermore, every primary school is resourced with additional teachers specially trained to carry out targeted interventions such as TRANsition Support for InTegration (TRANSIT) and the School-based Dyslexia Remediation (SDR) Programme. Through TRANSIT, Primary 1 students identified with social and behavioural needs are placed in smaller class sizes of up to 10 to develop foundational self-management skills as they begin their schooling journey. Some students with SEN may also be in parallel pull-out small classes for learning support in English and mathematics where they learn alongside other students with weak language and literacy skills.
Teachers trained in the SDR programme support Primary 3 and 4 students with dyslexia through explicit and systematic instruction that encompasses phonics teaching, sight word recognition and reading comprehension strategies. These targeted intervention sessions conducted in classes of four to six students enable students with dyslexia to strengthen literacy skills. Concurrently, in their regular English language classes, teachers continue to reinforce these literacy skills using strategies that are essential for some students and beneficial for all.
Mainstream schools have SEN Officers who provide learning and behavioural support for students experiencing social-behavioural challenges and adjustment difficulties. This may be done in class or in individual or small group settings. More SEN Officers are deployed to schools with a higher number of students with SEN.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring IHL Students from Disadvantaged Backgrounds Have Equitable Access to Internships","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"15 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for Education what measures are in place by Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) to ensure that students from disadvantaged backgrounds have equitable access to internships.
Mr Desmond Lee: IHLs work with companies and sector agencies to offer students, regardless of background, a wide variety of quality internship opportunities. The IHLs also provide support to ensure that students who require the completion of an internship to graduate can secure one. This includes offering coaching and advice on resume writing and interview skills, to help students boost their chances at securing an internship. Where necessary, the IHLs may step in to identify and help match students to suitable internships to ensure that these students can complete an internship to meet their academic requirements.
16 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health in respect of the new requirements on Integrated Shield Plan (IP) riders announced on 26 November 2025 to increase minimum co-payment and disallowing riders to cover the minimum IP deductibles, what other measures is the Ministry studying to safeguard the affordability of healthcare costs for residents.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The new requirements for Integrated Shield Plan (IP) riders aim to moderate the escalation of private healthcare costs. There are other measures targeted at managing healthcare costs, such as developing claim rules and enforcing on inappropriate claims, publishing benchmarks for hospital charges and private specialist fees, and more public education on insurance. Please refer to the response to Parliamentary Question Nos 1 to 4 for the Sitting on 24 September 2025. [Please refer to \"Reviewing Regulatory Framework for Integrated Shield Plans and Assessing Practice of Pre-authorisation\", Official Report, 24 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 4, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
Most Singaporeans use public subsidized healthcare. The most impactful measures to ensure healthcare affordability are in healthcare financing – enhancing subsidies and MediShield Life coverage as costs go up. However, however healthcare is financed, it will translate into taxes, insurance premiums or out of pocket payments by patients, all of which the population ultimately bears. It is therefore crucial that healthcare financing policies are appropriately designed for the long term, so that they remain sustainable.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data for Time Taken for Retrenched Workers to Return to Workforce","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"17 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry has data on the length of time taken for adults returning to workforce post-retrenchment to be placed in new jobs broken down by age groups; (b) if so, what are the mean and median time taken for each age group in 2025.
Dr Tan See Leng: Based on a six-month post-retrenchment follow-up conducted in 2025, the mean duration for retrenched residents to re-enter employment was 2.6 months for those aged below 40; 2.7 months for those aged 40 to 59; and 2.2 months for those aged 60 and above. The median duration was 1 month for those aged 60 and above, and 2 months for the other age groups.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Outreach Efforts to Remind Foreign Drivers of Singapore's Vehicle Noise Emission Standards","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"19 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what outreach or educational efforts are undertaken to remind foreign drivers, including regular cross-border commuters, of Singapore's vehicle noise emission standards; and (b) whether the Ministry will work with LTA to incorporate noise compliance reminders into Vehicle Entry Permit (VEP) and Autopass application processes.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: All motorists, including those driving foreign-registered vehicles, must comply with Singapore's vehicular noise emission limits. The National Environment Agency (NEA) publicises key changes to vehicular emissions policies through media channels as well as posters at land entry checkpoints. Foreign motorists remain responsible for familiarising themselves with our regulations before entering Singapore.
In 2025, 217 fines were issued to foreign-registered vehicles for exceeding the noise emission limits. This was higher than the 106 fines issued in 2024 and 154 fines issued in 2023. The significant increase between 2023 and 2025 can be attributed to enhanced enforcement with a wider coverage in Singapore.
During enforcement blitzes at or near our checkpoints, NEA officers deployed on-site will identify vehicles suspected of exceeding the noise emission limits and direct them to dedicated spaces for further testing to minimise impact on traffic flow. NEA has explored the use of acoustic cameras to enhance enforcement, but they were found to have limited accuracy and reliability in attributing the source of noise to a specific vehicle under the crowded traffic conditions at our checkpoints. Nonetheless, NEA will continue to explore the use of technologies to facilitate enforcement against noisy vehicles.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Motor Vehicles that Remain Unrectified Despite Vehicle Recalls","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"20 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) how many motor vehicles had been affected by safety recalls in the last 10 years; (b) whether the Ministry will consider suspending unrectified vehicles from road use for safety reasons; and (c) what are the measures to strengthen cooperation with importers and dealers to identify and contact owners of faulty vehicles.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: A total of about 500,000 vehicles registered in Singapore were affected by safety-related recalls from 2016 to 2025.
Recalls are initiated by vehicle manufacturers and both vehicle manufacturers and motor dealers are legally obliged to notify owners of affected vehicles. Enforcement action is taken against motor dealers and vehicle owners for non-compliance.
Most defects do not pose an imminent danger during normal operations. Where a defect poses serious safety risk, owners will be advised by manufacturers and motor dealers not to drive the vehicle until rectified.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing Fee Structure and Possible Tiered Service Options for Day Activity Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"21 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry has assessed if the binary fee structure for Day Activity Centres where families above the means-test threshold pay up to about $2,000 monthly, suppresses apparent demand by pricing out middle-income households; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider tiered service options, such as part-time attendance or co-payment scales, for all Centres to improve accessibility without expanding fiscal commitments.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The out-of-pocket fee structure for Day Activity Centres (DACs) is not binary, but rather, tiered based on per capita household income. Clients can enrol in DACs on a part-time basis and pay pro-rated out-of-pocket fees.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support for Children At Risk of Developmental Delays and Behavioural Issues Due To Ill Treatment by Caregivers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) in 2025, what is the number of children under the age of four who are at risk of developmental delays and behavioural issues due to ill treatment by their caregivers; and (b) whether the Anchor Programme piloted in KK Women's and Children's Hospital will be made available in other parts of Singapore to provide developmental and behavioural support to such children.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) does not track the number of children at risk of developmental delays and behavioural issues due to ill treatment by caregivers.
The Anchor Programme is an initiative of the KK Women's and Children's Hospital (KKH), which sees children from across Singapore and is not geographically bound. The Protective Service works with KKH to ensure that the statutory intervention is coordinated with the interventions in KKH. We welcome other hospitals to consider similar programmes, if they see a need amongst their patients.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tuberculosis Screening for Long-term Pass Holders and Frequent Cross-border Travellers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"23 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health given the regional surge in tuberculosis (TB) cases (a) whether the Ministry has reviewed its current screening requirements for long-term pass holders and frequent cross-border travellers; and (b) what were the key considerations behind deciding not to expand or tighten screening measures at this stage.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Tuberculosis (TB) is endemic in Singapore and across the region. Hence, TB screening for short-term visitors is impractical, because it will become a major deterrence for visitors to come to Singapore.
As for long-term pass applicants, we adopt a risk-based approach. All except selected Employment Pass applicants are required to undergo screening for active TB disease with a chest X-ray on arrival into Singapore. This also includes periodic health screenings during pass renewal. As for Employment Pass applicants, our surveillance on Employment Pass holders showed that prevalence of TB amongst them is low. Hence, applicants are instead required to submit a medical declaration that they are free of TB.
All TB cases are notifiable under the Infectious Diseases Act and subject to mandatory treatment. TB is also highly treatable, with a well-established treatment pathway. The key risk is when young children are infected, as they can develop highly dangerous meningitis. This is why we administer the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin vaccine to infants at birth, which will protect them against TB for 10 to 15 years.
Communicable Diseases Agency will continue to assess potential enhancements in its screening measures together with the relevant agencies based on the global and local epidemiological situation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulatory Framework for and Quality Assurance of Counselling Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health given the growing demand for counselling services and their impact on individuals' well-being, (a) how the Ministry ensures that counsellors are appropriately trained and qualified, and that organisations offering counselling services meet adequate professional and ethical standards; and (b) whether the Ministry intends to establish or strengthen a regulatory framework for this sector, including oversight mechanisms and sanctions for unprofessional conduct.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Counsellors work across different sectors, such as health, education and social service. Their scope of competencies vary widely depending on the areas they serve. For example, counsellors in the social service sector attain competencies prescribed in the Skills Framework for Social Service, which is developed by SkillsFuture Singapore and Ministry of Social and Family (MSF) Development in partnership with Ministry of Health (MOH), Ministry of Education and Institutes of Higher Learning. On the other hand, counsellors who also provide mental health counselling develop competencies that are prescribed in the National Mental Health Competency Framework in conjunction with the National Mental Health and Well-being Strategy.
Professional standards can be upheld through several mechanisms. Within the public healthcare system, counsellors are subject to institutional oversight and governance to meet service delivery standards. Within MSF-funded programmes in the social service sector, counsellors are required to meet hiring requirements and undergo clinical supervision and continuous training to enhance their competencies. Beyond this, the Singapore Association of Counselling offers voluntary accreditation and ensures standards and safe practice though professional certification requirements, a code of ethics, and ongoing training and support for their members.
MOH takes a risk-based regulatory approach and regularly assesses the evolving risks of healthcare and mental health services under its oversight, including professionals providing such services and considers additional safeguards where necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Foreign Workers Deportation, Broken Down by Work Pass Category","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) in 2025, how many (i) Employment Pass (ii) S Pass and (iii) Work Permit holders were ordered to be deported each month, respectively; (b) whether any of these persons appealed against the orders; and (c) if so, (i) how many appeals were successful and (ii) for what reasons.
Mr K Shanmugam: Foreign nationals will be deported by the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) pursuant to the Immigration Act (IA) 1959 if they have committed criminal offences, or if their continued presence in Singapore is undesirable or prejudicial to public security in Singapore.
In 2025, approximately 2,500 foreign nationals holding either an Employment Pass, an S Pass or a Work Permit were deported by ICA under the IA. Seventeen deportation appeals were received, of which none were successful. We are unable to provide details of the appeals and the considerations for the decisions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"AI Literacy Courses for Prison Inmates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what programmes are currently in place to provide safe and secure exposure to AI and digital skills training for inmates, so that they are better equipped for employment after release; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider piloting structured AI literacy courses within Singapore Prison Service institutions, potentially in partnership with educational providers.
Mr K Shanmugam: Yellow Ribbon Singapore (YRSG) and Singapore Prison Service (SPS) provide inmates with access to digital tools and skills training that are aligned with job market demands. Since 2022, YRSG has progressively introduced numerous digital skills training programmes for inmates, including introductory computing skills, proficiency training in workplace productivity tools and cybersecurity awareness, benefitting about 3,600 inmates.
YRSG and SPS are also exploring collaboration with various organisations to deliver training on artificial intelligence (AI) literacy and skills. In March 2026, SPS will, in collaboration with the Infocomm Media Development Authority's Seniors Go Digital programme, trial a programme that equips elderly inmates with basic knowledge and usage of common Generative AI tools. In 2026, YRSG will also commence \"SkillsFuture for Digital Workplace 2.0\" training for community supervisees, which will equip them with essential digital skills, including AI-related skills.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Future Strategic Direction and Support Level for Cultivated Food Firms Given Recent Exits of Several Firms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in light of the recent exits of several cultivated food firms (a) what is the assessment of the primary reasons for their lack of commercial success; and (b) what is the Ministry's future strategic direction and level of support for this sector in Singapore's food security journey.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Member may refer to the written reply given on 26 February 2026 in response to a related Parliamentary Question on Government's Support and Strategy for the Alternative Protein Sector. [Please refer to \"Government Funding in Lab-grown Seafood and Cultured Meat Sector\", Official Report, 26 February 2026, Vol 96, Issue 20, Written Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Singapore Youth League","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what is the progress of the Singapore Youth League announced at the Ministry's 2023 Committee of Supply debate; and (b) whether the Ministry considers the reliance on private-owned football academies and their leagues for national youth development acceptable.
Mr David Neo: The Singapore Youth League (SYL) has made good progress since its inception in 2024. Today, 6,000 boys and girls participate in the SYL. Each one of them plays an average of 30 competitive matches per year, double the number before the SYL began.
It takes a whole of nation effort to develop our youths. Everyone, from private clubs and academies to youth teams, from our Singapore Premier League clubs, contributes to a strong and wide talent base, upon which our national youth teams can be built. Therefore, we work closely with these stakeholders in the ecosystem to identify talents for the Junior National Development Centre and National Development Centre.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reliability and Extent of Use of Pulau Ubin's Electricity Microgrid","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how much electricity consumed on Pulau Ubin in 2025 was generated by solar energy from the microgrid; (b) how is the grid reliability of the system; and (c) what is the financial or service compensation for residents and business owners on the island during microgrid power supply trips.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Pulau Ubin microgrid serves more than 30 residential and business consumers with a total annual consumption of around 300 megawatt hours and features an experimental vanadium flow battery energy storage system. In 2025, solar energy supplied about 10% of electricity demand while diesel generation met the remaining 90% of demand. We expect solar utilisation to increase when an upgraded battery energy storage system is commissioned later this year.
In 2025, there were 13 power supply trips. The microgrid operator, EDP (Energias de Portugal) Renewables (EDPR), is working to upgrade the system to enhance overall system reliability.
The microgrid users affected by power supply trips may make representations to EDPR for compensation. EDPR has compensated all users who were previously affected by power supply trips.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data for Rentals of Privately-owned HDB Shops and for Licensing of Outdoor Refreshment Areas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development (a) why does HDB not collect or publish rental transaction data for privately-owned HDB shops and licensing data for outdoor refreshment areas; and (b) whether the Ministry will require such data to be reported and published to allow for an evidence-based assessment of rental pressures on heartland businesses.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Member's question pertains to privately-owned Housing and Development Board (HDB) shops. For privately owned shops, different Government agencies may collect and publish related aggregated data, which allows for data transparency while balancing commercial sensitivities. For example, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) maintains records on lease and tenancy transactions that are submitted to IRAS for the payment of stamp duty, including those for privately-owned HDB shops. The rental data collected by IRAS are made available by geographical location and property type on the Urban Redevelopment Authority's Real Estate Information System.
HDB announced in January 2026 that for HDB-owned coffeeshops, the Government will start collecting data on stall rents charged by rental coffee shop operators. HDB will assess how the stall rents data can be made publicly available, to enable stallholders to make better-informed decisions. In the same vein, HDB is looking to make available Temporary Occupation Licence (TOL) data for outdoor refreshment areas (ORA) to provide greater transparency on ORA TOL fees paid by HDB coffee shop operators.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Total Salaries of Political Office Holders Seconded to NTUC in Last Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what is the Government's policy relating to or agreement with the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) where political office holders also hold senior or executive roles within NTUC; and (b) in the last five years, what was the total clean wage equivalent amount attributable to salaries of political office holders seconded to NTUC under this arrangement.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: From time to time, the Government seconds political office holders to take on roles within the National Trades Unions Congress (NTUC). This arrangement enables the Government to strengthen our longstanding partnership with the labour union, understand workers' concerns; and collaborate closely to shape policies that benefit Singapore and Singaporeans.
Political office holders who are seconded to NTUC receive only one pay package as an appointment holder, as outlined in the 2012 White Paper on Salaries for a Capable and Committed Government. The cost is shared between the Government and NTUC.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Key Performance Indicators for Upcoming National Space Agency","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry with the establishment of the National Space Agency of Singapore (NSAS) from 1 April 2026, what are the specific key performance indicators (KPIs) that the Government will use to assess the agency's success in its first three to five years.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: In the next five years, the National Space Agency of Singapore (NSAS) will develop space technology capabilities to support national needs, such as in urban planning and port operations. NSAS will collaborate with the research ecosystem and support Singapore companies to capture opportunities in the growing space economy including in advanced Earth observation and communications satellite technologies, geospatial applications and in emerging areas, such as sustainability-related technologies. NSAS will also build space situational awareness capabilities to ensure safety of Singapore's space assets and formulate our national space legislation and policies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Publication of Advertising Code of Conduct for Tuition Centres and Accompanying Enforcement Actions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for Education (a) when will the Ministry release the advertising code of conduct for tuition centres; and (b) whether the guidelines will enable the Ministry to take enforcement actions against errant tuition centres.
Mr Desmond Lee: This question has been addressed by the answer to oral Parliamentary Question No 1 on 24 February 2026. [Please refer to \"Advertising Guidelines for Tuition and Private Education Services to Prevent Fear-based Marketing\", Official Report, 24 February 2026, Vol 96, Issue 18, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Appropriate Assessment Models for Primary School Students to Balance Exam Preparation with Inquiry-based Learning and Well-being","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Education given growing concerns about academic stress and mental health issues among children in Singapore, particularly in relation to the PSLE, how will the Ministry consider using more developmentally appropriate assessment models for primary school children, such as project- or portfolio-based assessments and regular bite-sized computer-adaptive testing.
36 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry can provide an updated assessment of Singapore's use of Primary 6 examinations, compared to other educational systems overseas that perform well for the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), in balancing examination preparation with inquiry-based learning and well-being.
Mr Desmond Lee: Our teachers use a range of pedagogies to facilitate students' learning, such as inquiry-based and collaborative learning. They also use a variety of assessment modes that are fit-for-purpose for school-based assessment, including modes, like project work and oral presentation.
The Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) serves a different purpose to school-based assessment. Apart from being a useful checkpoint on students' mastery of the primary school curriculum, the results also provide guidance for their next stage of learning and offer an objective way of posting students to secondary schools. Hence, the appropriate mode of PSLE is subject to more complex considerations.
Any form of assessment is likely to generate some stress. However, this does not necessarily mean that the assessment mode is not developmentally appropriate. Often, it is not the assessment itself, but what the assessment results are used for and the expectation of one's performance that drives academic stress. Changing the form of assessment without addressing the causes will ultimately not be effective and may even be counterproductive.
Over the years, efforts have been made to reduce the overemphasis on academic results and encourage a societal mindset shift towards holistic development. The blunting of the PSLE scoring system and the removal of mid-year examinations are some examples.
The Ministry of Education (MOE) continually studies high-performing overseas educational systems for practices that can potentially be adapted to our context. However, we are mindful that these systems operate in different contexts and deal with different trade-offs.
As part of the upcoming Education Conversations, MOE will engage and seek views from stakeholders on how we can address concerns over an education \"arms race\" and reduce examination stakes, among other issues. Given the complexity of the issue and the diverse views among stakeholders, any major changes will need to be considered carefully.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"National Service Participation of Madrasah Students","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Coordinating Minister for Public Services and Minister for Defence since 2020 (a) what percentage of madrasah students eligible and medically fit for National Service (NS) have not received Enlistment Notices; and (b) of those who enlisted for NS, what percentage served or are serving in the (i) SAF, (ii) SCDF and (iii) SPF, respectively.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) receives applications from National Service (NS)-liable males of various faiths to defer their NS for the purpose of religious studies or to practice as a religious teacher or leader. Each appeal is assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Since 2020, an average of 30 madrasah students per year have been enlisted for NS. They are represented across the Uniformed Services, subject to operational and manpower requirements.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Childcare Leave Allocation for Children Aged Seven to 12","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr David Hoe asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Government will consider reviewing the rationale for providing six days of childcare leave per parent each year for children under seven, but only two days for those aged seven to twelve, taking into account the broader health and caregiving responsibilities on the parents.
Ms Indranee Rajah: The Member is referred to the written reply to Parliamentary Question No 2 for the Sitting on 14 October 2025. [Please refer to \"Enhancements to Extended Childcare Leave Scheme and Proposal of New Leave Scheme for Caregivers\", Official Report, 14 October 2025, Vol 96, Issue 7, Written Answers to Questions section.]
Parents with younger children are granted more childcare leave provisions, as younger children are generally less independent compared to older children.
The Government remains committed to supporting working parents in caring for their children and will take the Member's suggestion into account as we review the current leave provisions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Factors Determining Location and Establishment of ServiceSG Centres, Services with High Usage Frequency and Projection of New Centres from 2026 to 2028","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what are the criteria used to determine the location and establishment of ServiceSG Centres; (b) which services at ServiceSG Centres currently record the highest frequency of usage; and (c) what are the rollout plans for new ServiceSG Centres from 2026 to 2028, including the projected number and their intended locations.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: ServiceSG seeks to integrate services across agencies to make public service delivery more accessible and inclusive. The Public Service adopts a “digital first, but not digital only” approach. For the majority of citizens who are digitally savvy, they can navigate public services and complete their transactions via the agency websites or on integrated service delivery channels, like LifeSG.
For citizens who may need additional support with digital transactions, ServiceSG Centres provide face-to-face support for close to 600 services across more than 25 agencies so that these citizens can complete their Government transactions with more confidence. Some of the frequently used services by citizens who require assistance at ServiceSG Centres include Singpass-related transactions, such as downloading the Singpass App, creation or reset of Singpass account, Central Provident Fund-related transactions such as nominations and account enquiries, and Housing and Development Board services including rental flat maintenance matters and carpark applications.
Since 2021, ServiceSG has expanded across Singapore, establishing 10 centres islandwide. We will progressively expand the number of centres in tandem with the needs of residents, while being prudent in the use of fiscal resources. We determine where to set up our centres based on several considerations, including population density and demographics, and prioritise areas that are less well served by Government services and/or have growing populations of residents who require additional support with digital transactions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Employment Pass Holders in Statutory Boards and Government Agencies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) how many Employment Pass holders are currently employed across all statutory boards and Government agencies; and (b) what are the most common roles that Employment Pass holders are employed for across all statutory boards and Government agencies.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: There are currently around 2,700 Employment Pass Holders in Ministries and Statutory Boards. They generally work in job roles that require skills that are in shortage among our local workforce, such as engineering and information technology.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Risk Management and Corporate Accountability of Companies Receiving EDB Incentives","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether EDB incentives currently require sign-off from both regional and global headquarters of recipient companies; (b) what mechanisms ensure continuity of commitments when regional executives rotate; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider requiring a global headquarters interlocutor as a condition for incentive approval to prevent orphaned projects.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Economic Development Board administers incentives to support companies undertaking substantive economic activities in Singapore. The incentive is awarded to the Singapore entity that will be carrying out the project and legally binds it to specified economic commitments. The award includes clawback provisions when commitments are not met. Personnel changes do not affect the company's legal obligations under the incentive award.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Composition and Distribution of Household Income Changes Across Different Income Deciles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how much of the rise in Singapore's median monthly household income in 2025 is attributable to the newly included non-employment sources; (b) what is the income change based on employment alone; and (c) what is the disparity in income from rent and investments, excluding CPF payouts, across different income deciles.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Based on resident households in the fifth income decile, average household market income per household member rose by $287 in 2025, of which $183 was from an increase in employment income while the remaining $104 was from an increase in non-employment income.
Data on the average rental and investment income per household member among resident households by income deciles can be found in Table 1.
6 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Coordinating Minister for Public Services and Minister for Defence in each of the last 10 years, what percentage of NSmen who take the Individual Physical Proficiency Test (IPPT) obtained a (i) Pass (ii) Pass with Incentive (iii) Silver and (iv) Gold, respectively, on their first attempt, broken down by age group.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Over the last 10 years, the Individual Physical Proficiency Test (IPPT) passing rate for National Servicemen (NSmen) has remained stable and are similar across age groups.
Among those who attempted IPPT, the proportion of NSmen who achieved Gold or Silver Awards is about 35%; those who achieved Pass with Incentive is about 35%; and those who achieved a Pass is about 15%. The percentages have been relatively stable across the years since 2017.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Defence Spending Strategy and Assessing Effective and Long-term Returns on Defence Investments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Coordinating Minister for Public Services and Minister for Defence (a) what are the key principles and considerations underpinning Singapore's defence expenditure; and (b) whether there are frameworks or indicators used to assess the effectiveness and long-term returns on defence investments, including both tangible and intangible outcomes such as deterrence and national resilience.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Our defence spending and procurement decisions are consistently underpinned by key principles that ensure the effective use of resources in building up our capabilities and readiness to defend Singapore. These include the following:
(i) Operational Needs First. Our first priority is always on our operational needs, both current and emerging ones. To build up our capabilities ahead of time, and not just-in-time.
(ii) Clear-eyed on Life Cycle Costs. We plan our investments with full consideration of life cycle cost and long-term sustainability, taking into account the financial and manpower resources needed in acquiring, establishing, developing and maintaining the capability.
(iii) Integrated Systems View. We acquire and develop capabilities not in isolation, but with a view towards them being a part of the larger integrated system within the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF). This ensures that the SAF's capability is more than the sum of its individual parts.
(iv) Consistency is Key. As developing integrated systems and real capabilities require time and consistent effort, we invest steadily in technology and our people’s skills and competencies over the long term, eschewing a “feast and famine” approach in defence spending.
(v) Resilience Matters. It is important for the SAF to build resilience against disruptions. We achieve it through means such as the ability to adapt to our unique needs, ensuring adequate stockpiles and having alternative sources of supplies.
(vi) \"Best Solution\" Mindset. We acquire the most cost-effective systems to meet our operational needs, guided by robust professional assessments rather than being tied to any single source or solution. Where we need to achieve greater resilience or customise for our unique needs, we may develop our own systems.
(vii) Operational Needs Always. Going back to the first principle, our operational needs remain our foremost and utmost consideration, so that we can build a strong SAF that is prepared for today's threats and tomorrow's challenges. The first and last principles are deliberately repeated, in order to emphasise its importance. We do not let any non-operational considerations distract us from acquiring the best systems we can afford for our warfighters.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Smart Public Outdoor Fitness Corners for Seniors and Lower-Income Residents in Heartland Areas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr David Hoe asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether HPB has assessed the potential of \"smart\" public outdoor fitness corners, such as those in major Chinese cities that provide guided workouts and track activity to improve physical activity levels, especially for seniors and lower-income residents; and (b) whether HPB will consider working with relevant agencies to pilot such facilities in heartland areas such as Clementi.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Health Promotion Board (HPB) has not conducted assessments of smart public outdoor fitness corners.
Singapore has adopted our own solutions, with over 3,400 outdoor fitness corners and 28 ActiveSG gyms island-wide that provide accessible exercise options for residents, including seniors and lower-income groups. To support residents in using these facilities, HPB provides online resources on HealthHub that guide users on how to effectively utilise fitness facilities. In addition, the Healthy 365 app enables residents to track their activities and set activity goals and provides digital physical activity programmes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expanding Services Offered by Neighbourhood GPs under HealthierSG to Reduce Hospital Workload","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider allowing neighbourhood general practitioners (GPs) under HealthierSG to perform routine blood tests and simple procedures requested by hospitals, so as to reduce unnecessary hospital visits, time incurred for caregivers and transport costs for seniors.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: General Practitioners (GPs), including those participating in Healthier SG, already perform routine blood tests for their patients and enrollees. Healthcare clusters also work closely with GPs to enhance collaboration where possible. Today, patients can be referred from public hospitals to their partner GPs or polyclinics for follow-up closer to home.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Acceptance Rates of Revised HealthHub Terms of Use and Alternative Access Options","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health since the updates to HealthHub's terms of use in September and November 2025 (a) how many users have not accepted the revised terms of use in full or have given up access to HealthHub; and (b) how else can such users access similar information previously accessible on HealthHub, other than through the platform.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: HealthHub's Terms of Use were updated in September 2025 and November 2025 arising from Data Protection Trustmark requirements and enhancement of the Caregiver Access module respectively. Since then, there has not been a reduction in the number of monthly unique HealthHub users.
Residents who prefer not to use HealthHub have the option of contacting the public healthcare institutions directly through service counters and contact centres.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Noise Pollution Enforcement on Foreign-registered Vehicles and Data on Noise-related Summons Issued at Land Checkpoints in Past Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in respect of the 126,820 vehicular fines issued to foreign-registered vehicles in 2025, (a) how many were for noise emission violations; and (b) what have been the year-on-year percentage changes in noise-related summonses issued at land checkpoints over the past three years.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: This question has been addressed in the reply to Parliamentary Question Nos 18 and 19 at the 2 March 2026 Parliament Sitting.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Usage of Self-testing Emissions Facility and Participation Incentives for Motorcyclists","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in respect of the emissions self-testing facility for motorcycles at Woodlands Checkpoint (a) what measures are in place to ensure proper usage, accuracy and prevent tampering; (b) what is the pass and fail rates to date; and (c) how are riders being selected or incentivised to participate in these tests.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The National Environment Agency (NEA) conducted a three-month trial of the emissions self-testing facility for motorcycles at Woodlands Checkpoint from November 2023 to February 2024. Riders were randomly selected and directed to the self-testing kiosk, where step-by-step instructions were provided on a screen to guide the riders in conducting the test. The conduct of the test was monitored by NEA officers stationed on site to ensure proper test procedures were followed. Around 700 motorcycles underwent self-testing, with enforcement action taken against the approximately 230 that exceeded in-use exhaust emission limits. NEA is exploring further enhancements to the self-testing facility to improve usability and scalability.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Financial Stress-related Mental Health Concerns Among Social Assistance Recipients in Past Three Years and Comprehensive Approach to Address Issues","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr David Hoe asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether has been an increase in proportions of citizens presenting with financial stress-related mental health concerns when seeking social assistance administered by the Ministry in the past three years; and (b) if so, what interventions are being developed to address the intersection of economic hardship and psychological well-being.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: When the Social Service Office comes to know that clients have mental health concerns, they will refer them to community mental health teams to provide the necessary assessments and interventions.
However, it is not part of the ComCare assessment process to require applicants to provide information on their mental health. To do so may deter those who need support from applying.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Take-up Rate of LPA Adoption by Age Group and Effectiveness of Public Outreach Programmes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what proportion of Singapore citizens have made a Lasting Power of Attorney, broken down by age group; (b) which initiatives have been most effective in increasing take-up across different age segments; and (c) what further measures are planned to sustain and increase uptake, particularly after the registration fee waiver period ends.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: As of January 2026, 21% of Singapore Citizens who are 50 years old and above have made a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA). Of these, majority (74%) are aged between 50 and 75.
Our survey on the Legacy Planning campaign showed that digital approaches, like social media campaigns, are most impactful in driving engagement and correcting misconceptions for those aged between 30 and 49, while the traditional media, such as newspapers, is more effective in raising awareness for those aged 50 and above.
To increase uptake, apart from continuing publicity campaigns through social media and traditional media, the Ministry of Social and Family Development is expanding collaborations with partners, such as financial institutions, social service agencies and community organisations, to promote and facilitate LPA applications. We are also reaching out to individuals who have yet to make their LPAs, with curated messages to nudge them towards making their LPA early.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Connectivity Dead-zones and Weak Signal Strength in Bidadari Estate in Past Five Years and Measures to Address Connectivity Gaps","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Alex Yeo asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) has received feedback of connectivity dead-zones and weak signal strength in the Bidadari estate over the past five years; and (b) whether this is due to a delay by telecommunications companies (telcos) in installing boosters pending the completion of developments; and (c) how will IMDA ensure telcos address connectivity gaps within the estate.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) has addressed similar queries on (a) ensuring high quality mobile coverage by telecommunication companies in a Parliamentary Question (PQ) response dated 29 February 2024, and (b) mobile connectivity in high-density residential estates in a PQ response dated 25 September 2025. [Please refer to \"Ensuring High-Quality Mobile Coverage by Telecommunication Companies\", Official Report, 29 February 2024, Vol 95, Issue 127, Written Answers to Questions section; and \"Precincts with High-density Condominiums and Apartments Experiencing Poor Mobile Connectivity and Enhancement Plans\", Official Report, 25 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 5, Written Answers to Questions section.]
Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) are required to meet the Infocomm Media Development Authority's (IMDA's) Quality of Service standards and the IMDA conducts regular checks island-wide to ensure these are met. MNOs therefore work closely with the Housing and Development Board (HDB) to facilitate mobile network coverage in new HDB Towns, such as the Bidadari Estate.
Over the past five years, the IMDA has received eight complaints regarding weak mobile coverage in the Bidadari Estate. Five of the complaints have been addressed and the MNOs are actively working to resolve the remaining three, which concern the basement carpark of the Alkaff Courtview Estate, within the first half of 2026.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Energy Consumption Projections of AI Park at one-north and Energy Efficiency Measures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what is the projected annual electricity and water consumption at full capacity for the new artificial intelligence (AI) park at one-north; (b) how will the Ministry measure software-level energy efficiency for firms under the national AI Missions; and (c) whether the Government will mandate energy-intensity disclosures for large-scale AI models to mitigate any rebound effect on national energy demand.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The planned Artificial Intelligence (AI) park at one-north is not a data centre (DC) park. It is designed to be a hub for a growing community of AI developers and solution providers. We therefore expect its annual electricity and water consumption to be comparable to other technology-intensive industrial estates, such as the Punggol Digital District.
Singapore is committed to advancing our AI capabilities in a sustainable manner. Under the National AI Research and Development plan, we have identified resource-efficient AI as a research priority. This, along with close monitoring of practices elsewhere, will help us consider appropriate policy measures.
For example, green or energy-efficient AI software is a still a nascent field and there is no internationally recognised standard today. Nonetheless, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) is working closely with the Green Software Foundation on the methodology for the new Software Carbon Intensity International Organization for Standardization standard, which provides an indication of energy usage for general software applications. In the meantime, IMDA promotes the efficient use of computing resources through initiatives, such as the Green Software Trials and the recently launched Practical Green Software Guide for Enterprises, which provides actionable steps for businesses to reduce their software carbon footprint.
We have also taken steps to improve the sustainability of our DCs through IMDA's Green DC roadmap. The Ministry of Digital Development and Innovation will introduce baseline energy efficiency standards for DCs through the Digital Infrastructure Act, which we are developing in consultation with the industry.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Guidelines on School Admissions Policy Between Affiliated and Non-Affiliated Students","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Education in respect of secondary school and junior college admissions, whether the Ministry provides guidelines or imposes limits on the maximum permissible difference in entry scores between affiliated and non-affiliated students admitted to the same school.
Mr Desmond Lee: Affiliated schools contribute to our variegated education landscape, with their long history and distinctive school culture. In recognition of this, affiliated schools are allowed to accord some priority to affiliated students, which provides them with the opportunity to consistently imbue their school values, ethos and culture into their students over a longer period, while still adhering to the admission framework set by the Ministry of Education (MOE).
From 2004, all affiliated secondary schools need to set Affiliate Minimum Requirements (AMR) – the minimum Primary School Leaving Examination score that students from affiliated primary schools must meet for affiliation priority. Since then, MOE has encouraged affiliated schools' proposals to progressively tighten their AMR to facilitate greater access for non-affiliated students. From 2019, MOE has also required schools to reserve at least 20% of places in each Posting Group at Secondary 1 for non-affiliated students. MOE does not cap the difference between the Cut-Off Point (COP) for non-affiliated students and the AMR, as the COP is determined by demand and choice patterns.
For junior college (JC) admissions, affiliated students receive two bonus points when selecting their affiliated JC as first choice, with a maximum of four bonus points in the calculation of net First Language and Relevant Subject. The COP for JC admissions is similarly determined by demand and choice patterns, reflecting the score of the last student posted to the school.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Implementation of Differentiated, Age-tiered Payout Ratios under Workfare Income Supplement Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the rationale for maintaining the Workfare payout ratio of 60% CPF and 40% cash for workers aged 70 and above, who have significantly shorter expected lifespans than workers aged 60 to 69; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider implementing a differentiated, age-tiered Workfare payout ratio that provides higher cash component for older workers to better support their immediate needs.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) is designed to supplement the incomes of lower-wage workers and build up their Central Provident Fund (CPF) savings for retirement, housing and healthcare. The current 40% cash and 60% CPF payout structure reflects this dual objective in helping lower-wage workers meet their immediate needs, while building up CPF savings for future needs.1
Although the cash to CPF ratio is the same for workers aged 70 and above, the CPF component of WIS effectively supports their near-term needs. The CPF component that goes into their MediSave Account can be used to defray medical expenses. The part that goes into the Retirement Account is converted into retirement payouts. The Ministry of Manpower has recently enhanced WIS payments from 2025 across all age bands, which increases the quantum of cash received. For example, a 70-year-old employee earning $1,700 a month saw their total WIS payment increase from $4,200 to $4,900 per year from 2025. The cash quantum correspondingly increased from $1,680 to $1,960.
To support seniors with greater financial needs, the Government has provided various forms of support to help Singaporeans cope with cost-of-living concerns. For instance, Budget 2026 introduced support measures such as: up to $570 of U-Save rebates in FY2026 for eligible Singaporean Housing and Development Board households, to help with their utilities expenses; $200 to $400 Cost-of-Living Special Payment in cash for eligible Singaporean adults; and $500 Community Development Council Vouchers for all Singaporean households.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Self-employed persons and platform workers receive 10% of their Workfare payments in cash and 90% in their MediSave Account."],"footNoteQuestions":["18"],"questionNo":"18"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Funding Allocated to and Annual Operating and Construction Costs of NESST Singapore Limited for Dormitory Operations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how much funding has the Government provided to NESST Singapore Limited (NESST); (b) what is the total cost of constructing NESST Tukang Dormitory; and (c) what is the estimated annual operating cost of NESST Tukang Dormitory.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Tukang Purpose-Built Dormitory (Tukang PBD) is built and owned by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) at a total construction cost of $58 million. NESST Singapore Limited (NESST) operates Tukang PBD and pays a monthly lease payment to MOM based on market valuation under a Government Build-Own-Lease arrangement.
MOM has provided about $6.2 million to NESST since its establishment in March 2023. The funding was provided to set up NESST as MOM's Company Limited by Guarantee in the initial years, as well as pilot innovations in migrant worker housing and grow capabilities in dormitory management.
We are unable to share commercially sensitive information about NESST, including Tukang PBD's operating costs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Employment Assistance Payment Payouts Made to Retiring Workers for 2024 and 2025","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for Manpower in each year of 2024 and 2025 (a) how many workers who reached the statutory retirement age were paid the Employment Assistance Payment (EAP) in lieu of being offered reemployment; and (b) what was the average quantum of EAP paid across these cases.
Dr Tan See Leng: In both 2024 and 2025, more than 98% of resident workers who reached the statutory retirement age and wished to continue working were offered reemployment. In 2024, 0.4% of these resident workers were paid the Employment Assistance Payment (EAP)1 in lieu of being offered reemployment while in 2025, the corresponding proportion was 0.6%. The average EAP quantum was $12,300 in 2024 and $17,400 in 2025.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : The average EAP quantum may vary from year to year as it is computed based on employees' last drawn monthly salaries."],"footNoteQuestions":["20"],"questionNo":"20"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Public Funds Disbursed to NTUC across Programmes and Grants for Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Manpower in each of the last five years (a) how much public funding was disbursed to the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), broken down into the various different grants or funding programmes; (b) whether public funds were granted for NTUC's operational and development expenditure; and (c) whether any public funds were given for the purposes of NTUC's staffing or executive remuneration, and if so, how much.
Dr Tan See Leng: The National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), as the key body leading Singapore's labour movement, delivers various programmes to upskill and uplift workers. NTUC is one of the Ministry of Manpower's (MOM's) service delivery partners to whom we would provide funding, which could be either in part or in full, for programmes which are aligned with our policy objectives. These programmes and initiatives include employment facilitation services, Career Conversion Programmes, the administration of Company Training Committees (CTC), the Migrant Workers' Centre and the NTUC-U Care Centre, which provides lower-wage workers with guidance on work-related issues and opportunities for earning a better living. For example, the Government has set aside a total of $300 million for NTUC's CTC Grant to support companies in enterprise and workforce transformation. As is common for such programme partnerships, a portion of the grants might include funding for our partners' manpower to support the programmes.
MOM does not track consolidated funding to NTUC across the whole-of-Government. MOM does not provide dedicated funding for NTUC's general staffing or executive remuneration.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Updates on Non-unionised Employee Representation by Non-Governmental Organisations at Employment Claims Tribunal","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry can provide an update on whether it will consider allowing non-unionised employees to be represented by non-legal non-governmental organisations at the Employment Claims Tribunal, in order to level the playing field with employers, who may be represented by legally-trained staff or staff acting on legal advice.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Employment Claims Tribunals adopts a simplified and guided process that is accessible to parties even without legal representation. Workers, including non-unionised employees, may also apply for a Community Courts Tribunals Friend, which will allow a third party to be present during tribunal proceedings to provide support. This third party can be a person from a non-governmental organisation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Rectification Status of Singaporean Vehicles Affected by Defective Takata Airbag","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether the Land Transport Authority has the latest data on the number of vehicles in Singapore fitted with defective Takata airbags that have yet to be rectified; (b) if so, how many; and (c) how does this compare with the total number of vehicles identified as affected by the recall.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: As of February 2026, about 215,000 vehicles in Singapore are affected by the Takata airbag recall. More than 90% of affected vehicles have been rectified and about 16,000 vehicles are in the process of being rectified.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Faster Response Targets for LTA Online Contact Form in Comparison with other Government Benchmarks and Standards across Agencies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr David Hoe asked the Acting Minister for Transport in view that the Land Transport Authority's (LTA's) online contact form states that replies to complex cases may take 14 to 20 days (a) whether the Ministry considers this response time adequate and aligned with the Government's public service standards; (b) how LTA's response timeliness compares with other whole-of-Government benchmarks; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider reviewing this service standard, including faster response targets.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Government agencies are expected to reply within 15 working days. More than 60% of feedback received by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) is resolved within five working days, while more than 93% of all feedback are closed within 14 working days. For complex cases where replies cannot be provided within this timeframe, LTA will acknowledge the feedback within the 15 days and keep the feedback provider informed of the progress.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expansion of Singapore Sports School Diploma Programme for Student-Athletes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Mr David Hoe asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth with the Singapore Sports School currently offering a limited number of athlete-friendly polytechnic diploma programmes in partnership with selected polytechnics, whether the Ministry will consider expanding the range of diploma pathways available to student-athletes to better support diverse strengths and career aspirations.
Mr David Neo: The Singapore Sports School (SSP) consistently seeks to strengthen support for student-athletes who pursue high-performance sport alongside their academic development.
Over the years, SSP has progressively expanded its breadth of athlete-friendly polytechnic diploma pathways. Most recently, it signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Temasek Polytechnic to offer five diploma programmes under its School of Applied Science. The programmes, available for enrolment in 2027, represents a significant milestone in expanding dual-career pathways for student-athletes as it marks the first time SSP is offering STEM-based diploma options and off-campus academic programmes.
This latest development expands SSP's arrangements today to three out of the five polytechnics which provide diplomas in business and the applied sciences to meet the evolving educational and career aspirations of our student-athletes.
Further, beyond the polytechnic pathways, SSP offers the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme, with flexibility for high-performing student-athletes to extend the programme to three years instead of two years to balance both their sporting and academic pursuits.
The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth and SSP will continue to work with suitable education partners to create more athlete-friendly pathways for our student-athletes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":6991,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Lee Hong Chuang","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20260302/vernacular-Lee Hong Chuan MTI 2Mar2026-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Lee Hong Chuan MTI 2Mar2026-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6992,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Lee Hong Chuang","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20260302/vernacular-Lee Hong Chuan MTI SQ 2Mar2026-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Lee Hong Chuan MTI SQ 2Mar2026-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6993,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Low Yen Ling","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20260302/vernacular-Low Yen Ling MTI SQ 2Mar2026_Chinese (mti).pdf","fileName":"Low Yen Ling MTI SQ 2Mar2026_Chinese (mti).pdf"},{"vernacularID":6994,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mrs Josephine Teo","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20260302/vernacular-Josephine Teo MDDI 2Mar1016 - Chinese_(MDDI).pdf","fileName":"Josephine Teo MDDI 2Mar1016 - Chinese_(MDDI).pdf"},{"vernacularID":6995,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Rahayu Mahzam","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20260302/vernacular-2 Mar 2026 - MOS Rahayu - Reply to MDDI Cuts.pdf","fileName":"2 Mar 2026 - MOS Rahayu - Reply to MDDI Cuts.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6996,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20260302/vernacular-2 Mar 2026 - Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik - MOE Cut.pdf","fileName":"2 Mar 2026 - Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik - MOE Cut.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6997,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Hany Soh","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20260302/vernacular-Hany Soh MOE 2Mar2026 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Hany Soh MOE 2Mar2026 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6998,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Lee Hui Ying","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20260302/vernacular-Lee Hui Ying MOE 2Mar2026 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Lee Hui Ying MOE 2Mar2026 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6999,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Hamid Razak","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20260302/vernacular-(Tamil Portion of Speech) Dr Hamid Razak (COS-MOE) Take 41 8-8.15 pm - 2 Mar 2026.pdf","fileName":"(Tamil Portion of Speech) Dr Hamid Razak (COS-MOE) Take 41 8-8.15 pm - 2 Mar 2026.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}